Old thread, but it comes up first when you search for this, so it is worth updating. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.
CarlaRPh_TPA 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. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
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.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFollowing on from CarlaRPh_TPA — and this may be the naive question:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
FDA_TrackerJim 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…
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.