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.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
dan_philly said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Pushing back on dan_philly here. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsdan_philly said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.