bri_stats 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. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.
bri_stats 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…
Fair, and it stops being fair at the extremes. The middle of the range is well understood; the ends are where the honest answer is that nobody knows.
bri_stats 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…
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemAdding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
chris_chi24 said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.