raj_cambridge said:Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the…
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them.
Reprising the part of this that the last few posts have moved away from:
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.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
julia.endo 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.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsjulia.endo 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 is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
Worth restating a point from upthread for anyone joining at this page:
Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.