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.
One thing that is still open after pete_nash’s answer:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
lisa_labSD 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 where I part company with the consensus forming above. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardslisa_labSD 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…
No disagreement with lisa_labSD. 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.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
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.