From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.
james_edin said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
I read this differently from james_edin, on substance rather than tone. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
james_edin said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsjames_edin said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else.
Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again. Tagging this one for the weekly digest.