DataDave said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
That is correct as far as it goes, and here is where it stops going. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
DataDave said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.ObesityLA said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
Dr.ObesityLA said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.