lucas_SP_BR said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.
lucas_SP_BR said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
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.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
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 BiochemDr.ReproEndo said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. Nothing to add that would improve it.
Dr.ReproEndo said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Coming at Dr.ReproEndo’s question from a different direction. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.