Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.
One thing that is still open after anders_CPH’s answer:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
josh_phd_bmore said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsClosing the loop on my own question.
Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled. Posting it because threads without a follow-up are half a thread.
MASHdoc_SA said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Fair, and it stops being fair at the extremes. The middle of the range is well understood; the ends are where the honest answer is that nobody knows.