Frankly, I can't imagine being a scientist-- or really, even being scientifically literate-- without a rudimentary understanding of both statistics and of calculus. By rudimentary, I mean enough to recognize methodological flaws in sampling and analysis, and to know that 'integration' involves area under a curve, and that 'differentiation' is the other side of that coin.
Do I get to continue to play the dumb monkey in this thread? Very well; carry on....
I do actually have a rudimentary understanding of stats, but it's really quite rudimentary. I need to have some basic comprehension of it for work. Fortunately, I live with a scientist, so he is called upon from time to time when I need help, although he doesn't always know the social science stats mumbo-jumbo I often encounter.
While I am certainly not a scientist, nor do I play one on TV, I consider myself more scientifically literate than 90% of the American public. That's a rough guess. Okay, maybe not WRT physics. But still.
I think we need to be rather wary of implying that it's necessary to pass calculus to be, what, worthy of basic intellectual respect?
Honestly, even if I had taken it, I doubt I would retain anything of value at this point. I took trig. Can I do trig? No. I haven't used it since I was 16.
