lucas_SP_BR 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.
lucas_SP_BR said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them.
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 Biochemanna.melb_AU said:Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use.
anna.melb_AU said:Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
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.
Happy to go further on any of that.