Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Following on from LindaRN_retired — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
bri_stats said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsClosing the loop on my own question.
Update — I was wrong in the opening post, specifically about the direction. Correcting it here rather than editing it away.
Dr.EndoIndy said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Agreed, with the usual condition: that holds for the average and this board is a collection of individuals. A population claim and a personal prediction are different things and get quoted interchangeably.