DataDave said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
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. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
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.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDeniseRN_TPA 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. Nothing to add that would improve it.
DeniseRN_TPA said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Coming at DeniseRN_TPA’s question from a different direction. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.