Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
Dr.DermMIA said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
I read this differently from Dr.DermMIA, on substance rather than tone. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.
Dr.DermMIA 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 StandardsDr.DermMIA said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them.
Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.