Dr.SportsMedIN said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
One concrete data point for the thread. The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.
Following on from Dr.SportsMedIN — and this may be the naive question:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsdave_SLC said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
I read this differently from dave_SLC, on substance rather than tone. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.
dave_SLC said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.