Can anyone please tell about slope function

Cathal Garvey via (by cathalgarvey from
Fri Mar 25 08:18:12 EST 2011

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 <dk from> wrote:

> In article <mailman.522.1301008328.20886.methods from>, Joshua
> Silverstein <silverstein.joshua from> 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
> Methods from


More information about the Methods mailing list