josh_phd_bmore 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…
I do not accept the framing. The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.
josh_phd_bmore 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 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.
josh_phd_bmore 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…
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Taking it to my next appointment.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFrom the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.
NurseKim_ATL said: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…
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.