andrew_nyc said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Following on from andrew_nyc — and this may be the naive question:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.PathRoch said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
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.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Dr.PathRoch said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
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.