rachel_ABQ said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.
paige_pharma said:True, though the ladder is longer and that is not a neutral detail — six dose steps means six opportunities to stall on the way up, and plenty of…
That reframing is the part I needed.
rachel_ABQ said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Pushing back on rachel_ABQ here. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne concrete data point for the thread. 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.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful. No action needed from anybody.