Yes over 80% of academia is liberal, but when you look at math, science, and particularly engineering professors that number drops significantly. Additionally If you pull out all the soft sciences (Psychology for example which is what this guy is) and leave only Hard sciences (those rooted in Math - Physics and Chemistry for example) you rarely find liberal professors. In fact I call people out like this guy who call themselves scientists. I see it all the time and personally take offense to it as I have an Electrical Engineering degree and am a certified PE which the IEEE board recognizes as criteria for making one a scientist. A Physical Therapist and Chiropractor are not doctors, and a PHD in Psychology is not a scientist.
not to get all excited but this "inquiry" it can't be deemed a responsible study doesn't mean much if anything. http://www.openmarket.org/2013/10/23/scientific-literacy-and-a-storm-in-a-tea-party-cup/ In other words, Kahan’s “instrument” did not really measure scientific comprehension or its relevance to public policy. So when Mooney suggests that “Tea partiers are a teeny bit better at science comprehension than non-tea partiers—even as liberal Democrats are a teeny bit better at science comprehension than conservative Republicans,” and accuses Beck of missing the point (which he did), he himself misses the point. The naturalistic fallacy – “is implies ought” – is one thing. This fallacy – that knowing what one set of people know about one set of questions about science can inform our knowledge of what should be done about public policy – is one that GE Moore would have laughed at. and here is a better story from SCIENCEMAG.org wrt the Kahan blog entry. http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2013/10/statistical-fluke-researchers-observations-tea-party-and-science-spark For his part, Kahan took to his blog on 19 October to decry some of the misreporting, and muse on the ironies, in a post titled, in part: “Congratulations, tea party members: You are just as vulnerable to politically biased misinterpretation of science as everyone else!” Seems his little study was not all it was cracked up to be by partisans. Imagine that.
Dan M. Kahan himself is a left winger. He was shocked, and embarrassed of his own findings. http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/matt-...discover-tea-party-members-are-scientifically
"Next time I collect data, too, I won't be surprised at all if the correlations between science comprehension and political ideology or identification with the Tea Party movement disappear or flip their signs. These effects are trivially small, & if I sample 2000+ people it's pretty likely any discrepancy I see will be "statistically significant"--which has precious little to do with "practically significant."" http://www.culturalcognition.net/bl...ce-comp.html?lastPage=true&postSubmitted=true
typical liberal response. the study cant be right because it crushes the crafted narrative we have been have been cultivating for years there for we must discredit the one who made the study because we cant find any fault in the facts in the study
If he was a liberal, why did he say that the only scientists are only those who study the "hard" sciences, and those are the ones that are conservative?
he didn't say they was conservative he said they are rarely liberal but my premise stands instead of attacking the author of the study discredit the study
If the thread is about liberals and conservatives, and 40% of the nation identifies with being conservative, don't you think he was talking about conservatives? But hey, let's see what he has to say on it.
but that is exactly what you did was come off like a hack. instead of debating the content of the study you attack and question the creditability of the one who did the study
I don't doubt the results unlike my liberal buddies here. Universities are primarily factories for compliant specialist workers. The whole process engineers an elitist worldwiew for those who do make it. Liberals should stop pretending people in scientific fields don't have their own biases.
even the author "discredits" the media interpretation. As to the methodology and the issue of its findings, guess you don't read much.
Yeah. Especially the ones who make their living off of getting Government grants for bogus global warming studies.
Well, the Tea Party is pretty good for a conservative group who consists of people becoming politically active, perhaps, for the first time in their lives. But, in the polling sample, the sample size for Tea Party (430) vs non-Tea Party (1886) may skew the results because that's less chances for the Tea Party folks to go wrong. So, it's impressive that the results are so in favor of the Tea Party groups. Of course, it would be an even greater accomplishment if Conservative groups didn't become radical recently calling for an end to Evolution and Critical Thinking material being taught in public school... Oh well, it's like terrorists getting educated to kill for their ignorant ideology using our own schools of knowledge against us... Even if you think paying for stuff, and cuts, are good. Don't let the Tea Party succeed in their entire ideology. Otherwise EVERYONE will become ignorant in the end.
You're right people in scientific fields DO have their own biases. Universities are factories for "compliant specialist workers?" Eh... Train them to work not to think. Is that the Tea Party education curriculum? - - - Updated - - - Touché. Greed is everywhere, especially when it comes to grant money...
