DataDave said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
DataDave said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
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 BiochemEndoResFellow said:It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any.
Mine went the same way, slower.
EndoResFellow said:It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any.
Coming at EndoResFellow’s question from a different direction. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.