Dr.MetabolicMD said:Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.
Dr.MetabolicMD said:Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
Coming at Dr.MetabolicMD’s question from a different direction. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFollowing on from Dr.MetabolicMD — and this may be the naive question:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
PeptideSynthNJ 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…
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.