lisa_labSD said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Pushing back on lisa_labSD here. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.
lisa_labSD said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Agreed, and one caution: a single measurement is not a measurement. Anything that moves day to day needs a trend before it means anything at all.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
lisa_labSD said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it.
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. 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.
Dr.EndoIndy said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.