BiostatsBrad said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
I read this differently from BiostatsBrad, on substance rather than tone. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.
BiostatsBrad said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.
BiostatsBrad said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFrom the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.
NurseKim_ATL said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.