Following on from newstart_MO — and this may be the naive question:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
dave_SLC said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.
dave_SLC said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
No disagreement with dave_SLC. One condition attached. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsdave_SLC said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.