Dr.EM_Chicago 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. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.
One thing that is still open after Dr.EM_Chicago’s answer:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsstefan_berlin said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
stefan_berlin said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Fair, and it stops being fair at the extremes. The middle of the range is well understood; the ends are where the honest answer is that nobody knows.