patPC_UT said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
I read this differently from patPC_UT, on substance rather than tone. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
patPC_UT said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
patPC_UT has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
patPC_UT said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsClosing the loop on my own question.
For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.
mike_mod said:For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.