Publishing an inconvenient result: a case study — the long version posts 61–75

Two claims get bundled together under Publishing an inconvenient result and they need separating. The descriptive one — this is what was observed — is usually well supported. The causal one — this is why — usually is not.

Almost every disagreement in threads like this one dissolves once you say which of the two you are making.

Building on post #61 rather than restating it.

The record shows what was measured. Everything beyond that is inference and this site tries to keep the line visible.

Stating my assumptions rather than smuggling them in.

Everything in post #61 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.

The useful distinction on Publishing an inconvenient result is between what was measured and what was inferred from it. Both end up in the same sentence and only one of them has error bars.

Speaking only to Publishing an inconvenient result as I have actually seen it, rather than as it is usually described: the effect is real, it is smaller than the thread suggests, and the variance between people is larger than the effect.

Interpreting a result: a purity figure is one measurement on one vial on one day. Agreement across two services is much stronger. A single high number does not establish a pattern.

No notes. Posting so the count is not one.

Narrowing post #66, because the general version has more than one answer.

A request rather than an answer: could whoever has the primary source for Publishing an inconvenient result post it? I have seen the claim three times this month and each version had lost a qualifier.

Post #66 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.

Where two services agree with each other and with the declared figure, that is a genuinely strong result and it applies to that lot.

Someone should write this up properly, and it should probably not be me.

It does not extend to lots nobody has seen, it is not a recommendation, and it says nothing about anything other than what was measured.

That matches what I have seen, for whatever a single anecdote is worth.

Genuine question rather than a rhetorical one: has anyone here actually observed Publishing an inconvenient result, as opposed to read about it? The thread is long and I cannot tell.

A record with four results over sixteen months is a thin record rather than a bad one, and the honest description says which.

Answering the question post #70 raises rather than the one it answers.

Two people in this thread mean different things by Publishing an inconvenient result and are disagreeing about the definition while believing they are disagreeing about the facts. Worth pausing to define it.