The Science of 6% of Scientists...

[rdean]

Wrong? There you go. For right wingers, all you have to do is "say it" and it becomes true.

Then you go through the message board and find that Republicans think science is a "faith", evolution a "lie" and climate change a "conspiracy". Not just this message board, but pretty much all of them.

Oops.

And from these people are where "scientists" come from? Seriously?

You want me to prove that only 6% of scientists are Republican. Well, PEW already did that. I want the right wing to prove that MORE than 6% are scientists. They won't because they can't. What fields of science are Republican scientists expecially strong in? Maybe we should start there.

 

[Tank]

Over 90% of scientists are white, racist

 

[daveman]

Wrong? There you go. For right wingers, all you have to do is "say it" and it becomes true.

Then you go through the message board and find that Republicans think science is a "faith", evolution a "lie" and climate change a "conspiracy". Not just this message board, but pretty much all of them.

Oops.

And from these people are where "scientists" come from? Seriously?

You want me to prove that only 6% of scientists are Republican. Well, PEW already did that. I want the right wing to prove that MORE than 6% are scientists. They won't because they can't. What fields of science are Republican scientists expecially strong in? Maybe we should start there.

See, flacaltenn? The boy LOVES to be wrong. He's a masochist.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You have rdean on ignore? Wow. Did not see that coming. Nope. I sure didn't.

Me either.

I guess even his own 'side' are embarrassed by his babbling whines. Damn, I'm feeling kind of sorry for him now.

I've felt sorry for him ever since I realized just how few brain cells he had, huddling together in the vast echoing space of his skull, trying to keep warm.

 

[flacaltenn]

Guys --- I'm just trying to make RDean a more effective opponent for you.. I'm bored with the USMB status quo and decided to take on a little lefty-coaching to make the game more competitive..

RDean:

Don't know what I meant by "how science works"??? That's a problem. You missed the parts where we don't "vote" on theories, or shut-down debate, or go seek a GroupenFurhrer for an edict?

I don't even know where your argument was aimed. As some kind of "proof" that more than 6% of scientists would be Republican? If that was it, you failed terribly.

Republicans cut education. They defund research and innovation. Republicans don't like science. I'm not saying ALL, how about "All but a few"?

I really don't CARE about the truth of your assertion.. Makes no difference to a non party-animal like myself --- except that it BUGS ME that it's WEAK and seemingly unsupportable and that you and others constantly squawk about it -- like it's an important tool in your arguments.. It's not.. The fact that you didn't recognize any of my arguments for WHY it's weak is also a problem..

When you repeatably MAKE an assertion like this one --- the scientific method of debate would be for folks to point out the WEAK points. Then you DEFEND your assertion.. Your opponent is not required to disprove your assertion.. They COULD - or they might not even CARE about the truth of your assertion.. They just want that assertion to be valid. That allows it to be useful in the process of furthering knowledge. Otherwise -- that assertion is NOT defended or proven and (in science) becomes simple road kill..

Want to become a REAL political dragon-slayer? Care enough to DEFEND a repeated assertion. Make it part of the ACCEPTED facts of political science. Now

-- are there any other similiar polls or research on this "6% of Republicans" deal that you know of?

-- do you really think that the readership of a single Science magazine (largely slanted to academia) is an appropriate sampling population to determine the actual statistics?

-- do you CARE about whether it's a strong argument for your partisian case -- or just a factoid you picked out of your spam mail?

Just trying to understand why you are so devoted to "the cause"....

 

[rdean]

Consider this:

The US leads in Science and Technology by a slim margin. How long would that last under Republican leadership? How much ground did we lose under Bush?

Does the GOP even care?

 

[rdean]

Guys --- I'm just trying to make RDean a more effective opponent for you.. I'm bored with the USMB status quo and decided to take on a little lefty-coaching to make the game more competitive..

RDean:

Don't know what I meant by "how science works"??? That's a problem. You missed the parts where we don't "vote" on theories, or shut-down debate, or go seek a GroupenFurhrer for an edict?

I don't even know where your argument was aimed. As some kind of "proof" that more than 6% of scientists would be Republican? If that was it, you failed terribly.

Republicans cut education. They defund research and innovation. Republicans don't like science. I'm not saying ALL, how about "All but a few"?

I really don't CARE about the truth of your assertion.. Makes no difference to a non party-animal like myself --- except that it BUGS ME that it's WEAK and seemingly unsupportable and that you and others constantly squawk about it -- like it's an important tool in your arguments.. It's not.. The fact that you didn't recognize any of my arguments for WHY it's weak is also a problem..

When you repeatably MAKE an assertion like this one --- the scientific method of debate would be for folks to point out the WEAK points. Then you DEFEND your assertion.. Your opponent is not required to disprove your assertion.. They COULD - or they might not even CARE about the truth of your assertion.. They just want that assertion to be valid. That allows it to be useful in the process of furthering knowledge. Otherwise -- that assertion is NOT defended or proven and (in science) becomes simple road kill..

Want to become a REAL political dragon-slayer? Care enough to DEFEND a repeated assertion. Make it part of the ACCEPTED facts of political science. Now

-- are there any other similiar polls or research on this "6% of Republicans" deal that you know of?

-- do you really think that the readership of a single Science magazine (largely slanted to academia) is an appropriate sampling population to determine the actual statistics?

-- do you CARE about whether it's a strong argument for your partisian case -- or just a factoid you picked out of your spam mail?

Just trying to understand why you are so devoted to "the cause"....

Republicans shut down debates all the time. All the time.

The truth is, scientists actually do vote on theories. Even though a scientific theory involves many facts, it's still a theory. Before you read further, ask yourself "why"?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Because it has to do with interpretation of the "facts".
Take evolution for instance. The only way you could absolutely prove evolution is to record an unbroken line of decent over billions of years. And even then it's questionable. Because we "see" something, doesn't mean we are seeing the exact truth.

Now this is what is hilarious. We have what's called "Blue" States because the majority of the people that live in those states are Democrats and Liberals. We have what's called "Red" states because the people that live in those states are mostly conservative and mostly vote Republican.

Sure, during one election, some states may vote a different way, but for the most part, they vote along what's considered "liberal" and what's considered "conservative". Now those states build according to the majority of the ideology of the people who live in those states. This is why Texas has two universities in the top 50 and California has 9. And the University of Texas just snuck into the 45th spot just a couple of years ago. Before that, only Rice was in the top 50.

So one fifth of our top 50 universities just "happen" to be in a "liberal" state?

Sidebar, when Ahhhnold left office, the California budget deficit was between 25 and 30 billion, now, under Gerry Brown, it's a little over 9 billion. Now this is what's funny, California gives nearly 40 billion a year to the Federal Government. If they could keep that money, they would always have a surplus. So where does the money go. We've all seen those charts that show Blue states, on average give much, much more to the federal government than what they get back, while Red states get back much, much more than what they give. And still Red State lag.

Now you look at Medical Centers and Centers of Technology. What states are those located in, for the most part, after all, there are a few scientists who are Republican.

So, while we can't look at an unbroken line in evolution, we go where the evidence leads. Did you get that? "WHERE THE EVIDENCE LEADS". Republicans cut education, Republicans say a degree is "just a piece of paper", Red States have few centers of technology, few centers of science, few centers of medicine. If you include Bible Colleges, Red States might even have more colleges, inferior, but more. Even the Red State economies are supported by Blue States. And which states have the highest number of dropouts? And in which states are school boards pushing "magical creation"? Isn't it even written into the Texas State Republican Party Platform.

So you look at all that "evidence" and come up with the answer, "Republicans produce scientists"? Really? Well, looking at the evidence, I came up with a completely different position. You stick to yours based on no data and I'll stick to mine based on data. And we both will walk away "happy".

National University | Rankings | Data | US News

 

[rdean]

Me either.

I guess even his own 'side' are embarrassed by his babbling whines. Damn, I'm feeling kind of sorry for him now.

I've felt sorry for him ever since I realized just how few brain cells he had, huddling together in the vast echoing space of his skull, trying to keep warm.

You must be a scientist. Collecting all that data.

 

[Tank]

94% of scientists are white.

Without white folks, there is no science.

 

[flacaltenn]

RDean:

Let me tell why I'm wasting my time on this discussion with you.. It's NOT because I care about proving the intellectual superiority of Reps over Dems.. I couldn't care less. It's because your fervent un-scientific single-handed jihad against your political opponents stinks just like Tank's little racist jihad. (Maybe Tank is actually a genius in taunting you to make that point -- Small probability -- but possible).. It reminds me of the stereotyping and "blood libels" against the Jews, or the blacks or any other ugly cultural/ethnic bias that I've ever experienced.. THAT'S why I want to see less of THAT -- and more FACTUAL assertions and on-topic response in the political threads. Lord knows -- this country REQUIRES a higher level of debate right now -- than weak-ass attempts to impeach the intelligience of the other side..

Now you look at Medical Centers and Centers of Technology. What states are those located in, for the most part, after all, there are a few scientists who are Republican.

Surely --- you're joking about this -- RIGHT? Are you that blinded by your hatred??

Where is the Center for Disease Control? (Atlanta) Where do our nation's rocket scientists live and work? (Houston/Huntsville/KSC). Where is the fastest growing semiconductor research area? (Austin/Houston) St Jude Children's Research Hospital? (Memphis), ect, ect, ect.

I don't think the college survey you mentioned even measured Private Colleges and I'd stack the grads from Vanderbilt, Emory, Auburn, Baylor, Clemson, ect against ANY of the Public schools on that list..

That's all anecdotal and useless badgering anyway.. Smells of elitism trying to hide the vast MAJORITY of the stone-dumb partisians under a rock. You expect me to excuse rampant IGNORANCE of the political masses on EITHER side by virtue of where the top 2% live and work? Believe me -- the majority of DailyKos readers couldn't pass a 9th grade civics test. (I know -- that's an unproven assertion but I'd love to see that poll)..

In fact -- I've got to conclude -- that since you insist that science is done by voting and you can't or won't defend the factoid assertion for this thread -- that you're not interested in building a solid political science case for your arguments. That it's just about hatred and bias and scapegoating.. Just like racism or anti-semitism or any other disgusting behaviour that derives it momentum from a lust for power..

 

[Tank]

There would be barely any liberals scientists, if we didn't count social scientists

 

[Old Rocks]

This is the source of the 6% figure for scientists that are Republican.

Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

 

[Old Rocks]

There would be barely any liberals scientists, if we didn't count social scientists

Very stupid comment, Tank, ol' sot.

Chemistry has the most Republicans, 9%, and Geo-sciences, the least, 4%.

Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

 

[Tank]

All liberals are social scientists

 

[toxicmedia]

I think you are FAR too wound up about Democrat vs Democratic party.. If the Democratic Party is made up of Democrats and NOT Democratics ---

The Democratic party gets to name themselves. Andrew Jackson and Marty Van Buren decided to call it the Democratic Party a few hundred years ago. Calling it the Democrat Party is childish. I'm not wound up about it...I'm merely pointing out that the use of the epithet is a symptom of exposure to irrational GOP/Tea Party inspired media propaganda.

I would suspect that ANY profession that had such a prevalence of ACADEMIC employment would lean somewhat towards the Democrats. Perhaps even 60/40 --- but that's just a personal guess based on the size of the educator cohort. But it's NOT because Republican or Conservative scientists are RETARDED by their religious beliefs. In fact, I find it easier to believe in the Genesis explanation of Creation rather than the Big Bang because the concept of all matter/energy in the universe fitting on the head of the pin prior to the event requires MORE FAITH than the cutesy folksy version... The amount of FAITH required by advanced science is actually pretty high..

I would never suggest that people of faith are retarded. My faith, and my belief in the validity of the theory of natural selection, coexist very easilly in my life. Do I believe that dinosaurs roamed the Earth with Adam and Eve?...no. I do not believe there is any faith involved in the scientific method, because there is no deity or worship.

But I DO know (unless anyone can name similiar studies or defend the poor sampling technique of the PEW AAAS poll) -- that 6% is a faulty answer.. And I believe that PEW was smart enough to know that including those questions for THAT population would generate controversial results that would please the client and get them favorable exposure...

You can't possibly know for sure if the 6% figure is "faulty" without conradictory evidence, but I agree that it sounds low. I attended UC Berkeley as an Athropology major, so my extreme experience would not support the notion that American "scientists" are 60/40 D/R.

What I'm about to say might seem almost impossible, especially if one exposes one's self to Fox, MSNBC, or talk radio...but I have many liberal and Democratic friends at the Presbyterian church I attend, and none of us think Christian, or Republicans are retarded. Privatly...many of the folks I know imply blame propaganda advocacy media for making people hate each other. You'd be amazed what we could all agree upon if we didn't have the media instigating phony moral outrage.

 

[flacaltenn]

This is the source of the 6% figure for scientists that are Republican.

Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

You must have skipped the OP for the thread --- because I gave you all of that. Plus the section of the PEW/AAAS poll that discussed the sample methodology and specific measurements of the sample population..

So the question is --- do you believe this sample of single academically overpopulated convienient sample is valid enough to extend to the whole universe of American scientists?
And is ONE STUDY enough to boldy and repeatably quote that statistic as fact?

Are we gonna start measuring old people by polling readers of "Reader's Digest"??

 

[flacaltenn]

toxicMedia:

I guess I WILL worry more about Democrat being an epithet.. Right after we rid the commons of the "tea-bagger" convention..

I would never suggest that people of faith are retarded. My faith, and my belief in the validity of the theory of natural selection, coexist very easilly in my life. Do I believe that dinosaurs roamed the Earth with Adam and Eve?...no. I do not believe there is any faith involved in the scientific method, because there is no deity or worship.

Are you sure man? It's a little off topic. But can you really really comprehend ALL of the matter and energy in the entire known universe co-located in a lesser space than the size of a flea?? Or does that "scientific fact" require a little "faith" to help it go down? Of course -- I've GOT to buy into it.. It's the prevailing wisdom (not unchallenged, but prevailing). I personally think it requires far LESS faith to believe that Moses parted the Red Sea in Exodus. OK -- no faith required in "scientific method", but some of prevailing "scientific facts" require faith in the assertions.

You can't possibly know for sure if the 6% figure is "faulty" without conradictory evidence, but I agree that it sounds low. I attended UC Berkeley as an Athropology major, so my extreme experience would not support the notion that American "scientists" are 60/40 D/R.

I'm not specialized in Statistics, but I was taught that you COULD invalidate a statistic by showing that it's sampling methodology was biased by any number of factors.. All you have to do is show a bias that questions whether the population used is representative of the larger group you are trying to quantify.

I'm SURE you would have gotten a different result if you polled the Manned Space Flight Center in Houston or the attendees at the GeoPhysical Resources convention.. But neither of those samples would be representative either. There's a LOT of work to do for ANYONE who seriously wants to make this science/political assertion stick. And they might not like the results of their work..

Heck -- polling ANYTHING in Berkeley only has meaning to the folks at "The Nation" (I know I'm a smartass -- but KPFA was one of my favorite stations when I lived in the Bay Area).

What I'm about to say might seem almost impossible, especially if one exposes one's self to Fox, MSNBC, or talk radio...but I have many liberal and Democratic friends at the Presbyterian church I attend, and none of us think Christian, or Republicans are retarded. Privatly...many of the folks I know imply blame propaganda advocacy media for making people hate each other. You'd be amazed what we could all agree upon if we didn't have the media instigating phony moral outrage.

I think we're BLESSED with a plethora of media to choose from. It's chaotic, and largely uncontrollable. And the majority of it --- STINKS. So in that fashion -- we're in agreement. With all the "new media" available, you no longer get to suffer thru JUST the spin zones of the two major parties. But we're more likely to find facts and analysis that would NEVER have seen the light of day in the 3 channel TV days..

YES -- there's toxic spewage out there. But there's also more light on the subjects than before. It's a tradeoff I prefer. Because "neutered" news, and "elite-only" debate doesn't interest me at all.. When the chains came off the "media" --- so did the gloves..

 

[LAfrique]

I think the "6% of Scientists Identify as Republicans" simply means that only 6% of scientists are war mongers: Republicans are noted for their love for war and readiness to engage in war over very minute issues.

 

[daveman]

I think the "6% of Scientists Identify as Republicans" simply means that only 6% of scientists are war mongers: Republicans are noted for their love for war and readiness to engage in war over very minute issues.

Somebody hasn't been paying attention.

 

[Liability]

Only 6% of scientists are Republican?

I never heard that before