LabKate said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
Happy to go further on any of that.
LabKate said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.
LabKate said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFrom the other side of the consultation, briefly. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.