PedsEndoPhilly said:Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.
I read this differently from PedsEndoPhilly, on substance rather than tone. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
PedsEndoPhilly said:Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.
Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.
PedsEndoPhilly said:Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFrom the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.
LindaRN_retired said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Nothing to add that would improve it.