Dr.PathRoch said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible. Nothing being described here is a one-way door, which changes how cautious it is reasonable to be.
Dr.PathRoch said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them.
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.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsJenPlateau said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
JenPlateau said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.