MASHdoc_SA said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.
One concrete data point for the thread. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDr.PeteFamMed said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
I read this differently from Dr.PeteFamMed, on substance rather than tone. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.
Reporting back.
Closing this out. What actually changed my mind was the point about waiting for a trend instead of reading a single measurement, which is embarrassing in hindsight and worth saying anyway.