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.
Dr.GastroMayo said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
Dr.GastroMayo said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsReporting back.
My error was treating units as a mass. Once I wrote mg/ml on the vial in marker and worked in millilitres first, the two of us got the same answer.
One thing that is still open after Dr.GastroMayo’s answer:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?