dan_philly said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
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.
dan_philly said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
That reframing is the part I needed. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.NateNeph said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. Nothing to add that would improve it.
Dr.NateNeph said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.