wendy_avl said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.
wendy_avl said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.CardioMD said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
Dr.CardioMD said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.