A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
KetoKyle said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading it.
KetoKyle said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemKetoKyle 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.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.