jason_paloalto said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
jason_paloalto said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
jason_paloalto has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
Happy to go further on any of that.
jason_paloalto said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAdding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
DeniseRN_TPA said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction.