dave_SLC said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Adding 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.
andrew_nyc said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.
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 Biochemandrew_nyc 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 distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
Closing the loop on my own question.
Update — I was wrong in the opening post, specifically about the direction. Correcting it here rather than editing it away.