bri_stats said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
I do not accept the framing. The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.
bri_stats said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.
bri_stats said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
sophie_paris 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.