DebRD_ATL said:It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any.
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.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
JennaRN said: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…
Coming at JennaRN’s question from a different direction. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFollowing on from B12Beth — and this may be the naive question:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Following up because I said I would. I changed one thing, left everything else alone, and waited the full interval before looking. It resolved, and I cannot prove which half of that did it.