Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

VanRx_Mike 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…

I read this differently from VanRx_Mike, on substance rather than tone. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

VanRx_Mike 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…

Agreeing with VanRx_Mike, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.

VanRx_Mike 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 exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.

Moderator note: a couple of off-topic posts removed. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.