BethLabQueen said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
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.
BethLabQueen said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
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 Biochempete_nash said:Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the…
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.
pete_nash said:Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the…
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.