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.
Following on from zoe_NC — and this may be the naive question:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
PharmacoVig_BOS said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading 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 BiochemPharmacoVig_BOS said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.