Personally I've forgotten plenty of supposedly "foundational" stuff from primary school that simply holds no value to me, including what was then a very firm grasp of the Irish language. I'd like to know better Irish than I do, but without needing it the skill simply atrophied away. If someone were to chastise me for not knowing Irish, I'd probably ignore them entirely.
Now, the maths knowledge we're discussing here is pretty important to a scientist or engineer career-wise, it's true. However, some people simply lack a head for maths entirely, and others may simply have avoided having to do maths in the course of their careers. Experiments with binary outputs seldom call for detailed graphs or examinations of correlation, and so I can imagine countless situations in which a skilled and respectable scientist may either avoid doing maths of this sort entirely, or may allow their previous levels of proficiency to decay away. So, while it seems *unlikely* that someone could get very far without knowing such things, it's not shameful for them to have done so. It shouldn't really be taken as an indicator of their quality as a scientist without knowing more about them or their work. All that aside, I'm with Joshua on this one; if someone posts a question on methods in science here, we should be offering answers and withholding criticisms unless there's some ethical reason to make something more out of it. On 25 March 2011 05:53, DK <[email protected]> wrote: > In article <[email protected]>, Joshua > Silverstein <[email protected]> wrote: > >I feel his/her pain in hearing "you should check this source and that, > this > >is simple"... I do agree this subject is a bit ridiculous to ask, but I > have > >posed questions to the listserve before about protocols that seem to be so > >common that a real detailed SOP isn't available unless your lab has been > >working on the problem for a decade or three. With more information in > the > >digital age, it seems like we just have a lot more junk out there to sift > >through. > > > >I wish that people would be more respectful and just help. We don't know > >each other and I'd like to think of the listserve as a symbiotic > >relationship where we can all learn without being told we are stupid. > >Really it would take 2 minutes of your time and care to help one another > >out, instead of ridiculing. This listserve doesn't exist to question the > >state of science today, it is to advance it. If you want to talk policy, > >find another venue, or I bet less people will subscribe to this listserve. > > All this sounds fine and generally correct but let's not forget the > obvious: > It is 5th or 6th grade material we are talking here. *That* makes quite > a difference. Lotsa implications. > > DK > _______________________________________________ > Methods mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/methods > -- letters.cunningprojects.com twitter.com/onetruecathal http://www.indiebiotech.com _______________________________________________ Methods mailing list [email protected] http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/methods
