BenResearch_OR said:Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.
BenResearch_OR said:Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
Coming at BenResearch_OR’s question from a different direction. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
One concrete data point for the thread. 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.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
bri_stats said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Pushing back on bri_stats here. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.