steph_laguna said:For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.
I read this differently from steph_laguna, on substance rather than tone. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.
steph_laguna said:For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
steph_laguna said:For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFrom 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.
JenPlateau said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.