mel_PDX said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Agreed, with the usual condition: that holds for the average and this board is a collection of individuals. A population claim and a personal prediction are different things and get quoted interchangeably.
Old thread, but it comes up first when you search for this, so it is worth updating. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsingrid_STO said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. Nothing to add that would improve it.
ingrid_STO said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.