Um... since when is knowing calculus a pre-requisite for employing the scientific method? High school calc students do nothing in their calc class that involves science. Calc is a tool to be employed in science, but is not necessary for many, many things. So, Scott, your basic premise does not logically follow from the facts you presented.
Who's the logistician now, bitch?
Someone who is doing medical research should know how to find the area under a curve by integration. It's as simple as that.
I'm pretty sure that's not on the exams to get your medical license. Maybe YOU think they should know how to do this, but I don't think you have any support for that opinion other than "I am Scott and I say everybody with an advanced education should know this."
ETA: For the record, I agree that advanced practitioners of science should at least know what Calculus us, even if they can't do it. However, that doesn't MAKE you a scientist, nor is it REQUIRED to be a scientist. A 10-year-old kid can be a scientist without knowing calculus.
I'm pretty sure that's not on the exams to get your medical license.
Mostly because it's implied that you already understand those principles. Do you still take spelling tests for your undergraduate studies?
Um no... it's not implied at all. Knowing how to spell words without a reference is not a skill required for undergrad, either... that's what spell check, proof reading, and dictionaries are for. It's necessary to know how to get the correct spelling and meaning of a word. In medical science, depending on what you are doing, it may not be necessary to use calculus at all. My two parents who are medical doctors certainly don't. True, they know what calculus is, but they don't remember how to do it. If it's not tested at all in any way throughout the education and career path, how can you say it's implied or necessary?
True, they know what calculus is, but they don't remember how to do it.
Knowing what it is is the important part. This guy, had he known what calculus was, would simply have asked someone with calculus skills to assist him once he recognized the relevance.
True, they know what calculus is, but they don't remember how to do it.
Knowing what it is is the important part. This guy, had he known what calculus was, would simply have asked someone with calculus skills to assist him once he recognized the relevance.
I get that. I'm not saying this guy didn't have a Derp moment. I'm just saying that doesn't make him any less of a scientist.
The paper is ridiculous. The author is... well, not stupid, but silly. I'm actually really impressed that he apparently reinvented a portion of the calculus, even if it was because he slept through his undergraduate education.
How many of you have ever written an academic paper, though? I don't mean a journal submission - I mean any kind of school or professional paper where you had to cite your sources. Now: how many of you padded out your bibliography/citations with things that you only kinda used, things you knew weren't closely related, or things you didn't actually even use at all?
That happens in professional publication. A lot. The citations don't mean much. It was probably pulled up by keyword search - it's a common subject - and cited with very minimal reading.
That's its own kind of stupid, mind you; I'm just saying that this doesn't exactly prove that innumeracy is endemic among medical researchers.
Comments
ETA: For the record, I agree that advanced practitioners of science should at least know what Calculus us, even if they can't do it. However, that doesn't MAKE you a scientist, nor is it REQUIRED to be a scientist. A 10-year-old kid can be a scientist without knowing calculus.
How many of you have ever written an academic paper, though? I don't mean a journal submission - I mean any kind of school or professional paper where you had to cite your sources. Now: how many of you padded out your bibliography/citations with things that you only kinda used, things you knew weren't closely related, or things you didn't actually even use at all?
That happens in professional publication. A lot. The citations don't mean much. It was probably pulled up by keyword search - it's a common subject - and cited with very minimal reading.
That's its own kind of stupid, mind you; I'm just saying that this doesn't exactly prove that innumeracy is endemic among medical researchers.
/thread