quinn_sf said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.
quinn_sf said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
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.
quinn_sf said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding 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.
hyun_seoul said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Second this. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.