Dr.pardue responds

Abstract

My original paper (1) focused largely on quantitative features of the IUPAC (slope) interpretation of sensitivity (2) in response to a challenge (3) related to the utility and advantages of that interpretation. The rejoinder (4) does not refute the quantitative utility of the slope interpretation (1)(2) but asks “not only when but why the ’slope’ interpretation emerged”. This paper addresses these questions with more emphasis on the more general response/stimulus interpretation (1) of which the slope interpretation (2) is a special case. To understand my intent, readers should consider the terms “dictionary definition(s)” and “formal definition(s)” interchangeable in any and all references to my use of these terms (1). ### formal definitions (5)(6) Quantitative parts of the formal definitions of sensitivity (Table 1⇓ , items 1b and 2a are themselves embodiments of the response/stimulus interpretation of sensitivity. View this table: Table 1. Selected definitions and a quote related to the words, sensitive and sensitivity. Regarding a suggestion (3) that the quantitative (“ancillary”) part of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) definition is “of more recent origin”, Mr. Alan Hughes, Chief Science Editor of the Oxford English Dictionary , informed me (A.M. Hughes, personal communication) that both parts of the OED definition (Table 1⇑ , items 1a and 1b) were written at the same time. It is also his opinion, as the senior scientist on the Supplement in which they first appeared, that the two parts of the definition are consistent with one another and that “the ’ratio’ is a way of expressing the ’degree to which’ in a quantitative way”, see also Table 1⇑ , item 2b. He mentioned a 1944 citation (“Sensitivity is merely the ratio of effect/cause… ”) as an example of a quantitative expression of sensitivity (see also Table 1⇑ , item 2b). These dictionary definitions are themselves unequivocal statements …