DanielChem_CHI said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
hyun_seoul said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Same pattern here, and in the same order.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardshyun_seoul said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Coming at hyun_seoul’s question from a different direction. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
One concrete data point for the thread. 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.