lucas_SP_BR said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.
Dr.Martinez said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemDr.Martinez said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
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.