TrialTracker_MD said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.
TrialTracker_MD said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsjulia.endo said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
julia.endo said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Coming at julia.endo’s question from a different direction. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.