VendorMark 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. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.
Happy to go further on any of that.
VendorMark said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
No disagreement with VendorMark. One condition attached. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
VendorMark 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. Taking it to my next appointment.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
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.
Happy to go further on any of that.
carl_compliance said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use.