Dr.ReproEndo said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
No disagreement with Dr.ReproEndo. One condition attached. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
Dr.SleepRoch said:Agreed, with a caveat about community reputation: it is a lagging indicator.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it.
Dr.ReproEndo said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.