The Science of 6% of Scientists...

[toxicmedia]

The Secretary of Health and Human Services has arbitrarily given waivers to 1,471 businesses and eight entire states from harmful provisions of ObamaCare. Despite union workers only making up 11.9% of the workforce, 50.26% of waiver beneficiaries are unionized!​

There's something fishy going on.

My point wan't that many unionized workers got waivers...it was that the unions that did get waivers represented less than 5% of the unions that contribute to the Democratic party.

As for the rest...all due respect...I fell like we've kind of highjacked the thread. In addition...please don't mistake my revulsion for devisive vitriol for support for Obama. It works both ways. During the Bush admin the shoe wa on the other foot when I used to defend Bush from the same stuff. I just don't like it when media gets people to hate each other.

 

[daveman]

The Secretary of Health and Human Services has arbitrarily given waivers to 1,471 businesses and eight entire states from harmful provisions of ObamaCare. Despite union workers only making up 11.9% of the workforce, 50.26% of waiver beneficiaries are unionized!​

There's something fishy going on.

My point wan't that many unionized workers got waivers...it was that the unions that did get waivers represented less than 5% of the unions that contribute to the Democratic party.

Yet half the waiver recipients are unionized.

Dems pandering to special interest groups.

As for the rest...all due respect...I fell like we've kind of highjacked the thread. In addition...please don't mistake my revulsion for devisive vitriol for support for Obama. It works both ways. During the Bush admin the shoe wa on the other foot when I used to defend Bush from the same stuff. I just don't like it when media gets people to hate each other.

 

[rdean]

So is "Government, Industry and Non Profit" all part of acadmics?

So far, right wingers have written, "They just can't be correct. A lot of scientists are Republican".

For Gods sakes people, look at your nominees for President. Is John Huntsman the ONLY one who ever even met a scientist face to face?

You guys believe evolution is a lie, science is a faith and climate change a conspiracy. You have as many facts proving there are more Republican scientists than 6% that you do proving the earth is only a few thousand years old.

Thead after thread calling scientists liars and yet you insist lots of republicans are one. (maybe they mean liar and not scientist?)

 

[flacaltenn]

So is "Government, Industry and Non Profit" all part of acadmics?

So far, right wingers have written, "They just can't be correct. A lot of scientists are Republican".

For Gods sakes people, look at your nominees for President. Is John Huntsman the ONLY one who ever even met a scientist face to face?

You guys believe evolution is a lie, science is a faith and climate change a conspiracy. You have as many facts proving there are more Republican scientists than 6% that you do proving the earth is only a few thousand years old.

Thead after thread calling scientists liars and yet you insist lots of republicans are one. (maybe they mean liar and not scientist?)

Hey, Hey, Hey.. That's the spirit.. I've actually made the claim that science also requires faith because some of the theories and facts are too immense for meager minds to visualize. The concept of a Big Bang requires MORE faith and imagination for me then Moses parting the Red Sea. All the matter/energy in the universe on the head of pin? Or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Is there a diff to YOU??

But I've never made the claims about evolution or the age of earth that you refer to. And it's just as likely to me that the majority of new-agers, crystal worshippers, and Wiccans probably vote Democrat. I support people of spirituality and faith -- whatever the source. I don't ridicule them because of scientific purity tests..

When the study has really lop-sided representation from various cohorts that make a big diff to the question you're pointing to -- you have to be careful with breaking down responses in the fashion of your table above. Certainly, you can see that it raised the Repub. and Independ. considerably. So I'd say that maybe the Industry sample is too small to get an accurate reading.. It also reduces the response for Democratic affiliation to below a majority. So if you're happy with only 47% of industry scientists identifying as Democrats -- take a victory lap.. But it probably gets worse with a better industry sample.. Or a meta-analysis gained from multiple studies of this type. But that will probably never happen because only party animals are interested in this factoid.

Your conclusions are also fundamentally flawed by how blindly you assume that DEMOCRATS couldn't possibly be church-going, bible-quoting, people of faith in God. In my neck of the woods -- there are PLENTY of good Southern democrats who would fit that description.. Some of them might even be rocket scientists in Huntsville, or Houston.

PS: I don't support the GOP.. I could vote for one of their meager choices if the Libertarians don't nominate a qualified candidate.

 

[rdean]

"Only 6% of Scientists Identify as Republicans."

I've run into that statement countless times on USMB and it surely didn't jive with personal experience in Silicon Valley and elsewhere.. So I started to look into the claim..

Found one USMB thread from last year that ended up in the "tantrum room". Don't want THAT to happen here. What I what to do is nail the original source of that oft-quoted meme and do a factual analysis of the claim...

So far -- this is what I know.. Origin of the "factoid" is a Pew Poll that was done in conjuction with American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), a generally respectable organization that publishes "Science" magazine. Membership is similiar to National Geographic Society and all that is required is a subscription and a questionnaire.

The 6% factoid was only ONE of a couple dozen questions posed EXCLUSIVELY to AAAS membership.. But that was ALL that the political rags like HuffPost and Slate needed to know to turn it into flaming partisian dung.

The actual "factoid" can be found on this page of the survey..

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

So if AAAS is a truly respectable organization and is composed of "scientists" --- what could be the problem with the claim that only "6% of Scientists Identify as Republicans"?

1) We would need to know if this is the ONLY POLL ever done on the subject and whether there is further evidence of this fact ---- I can't find a single assertion of fact on this question that does not refer back to the Pew/AAAS poll cited here.

2) Is there any potential institutional bias due to the organizations involved? --- Both are highly respected organizations, tho leaning somewhat to the left. PEW's employees contribute almost exclusively to Democrat candidates and causes. And AAAS has many "social justice" initiatives that might seem more lefty political than scientific.

3) Does the statistical sampling of the AAAS membership ACTUALLY REPRESENT the composition of the general population of "scientists"? -- Most probably not.. And I'll elaborate on that below...

Question #3 presents the biggest problem for this factoid. I am certain that the sample population for this SINGLE poll does not accurately represent the general population of "scientists" in America stating political preferences. And any PROOF of this factoid would require far more extensive polling..

The Pew sampling methodology is located at:

http://people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/528.pdf

and gives some breakdown on the AAAS sample... To wit::

Category Percent Total

Employed 81 1990
Retired 19 602
Student 16 286

Employment sector*

Academic 63 1209
Government 9 191
Industry 15 308
Non-profit 8 162
Other 5 116

Field
Bio and Med 51 1255
Chemistry 14 348
Geosciences 6 154
Physics Astro 8 229
Other 19 497

Work primarily addresses…
Basic knowledge questions 49 1225
Applied research questions 46 1167
Own work is interdisciplinary
Yes 81 2053
No 18 456

In past 5 years, devoted all,
most, or a lot of time to…

Research 66 1597
Teaching 30 791
Mgt & admin. 35 917
Clinical practice 6 159

I seriously doubt that the general composition of scientists is anywhere near 63% academic and only 15% industry. Even if it were true -- that alone would partially explain the result. And with the last survey question adding up to WAAAY more than 100% , there's some question as to the allowed answer(s) for whether their work was largely Teaching and administration or real research and clinical practice (or some combo of both if in a university).

Perhaps others want to contribute SCIENTIFIC analysis to this question in the form of how the general "scientist" population breaks down between academic and industry. Keep in mind that NO PARTICULAR effort was placed in verifying the bona fides of the individuals surveyed, no control was placed on geographic regions..

I find it very likely that this factoid is merely an opportunistic political use of a single data point that was NOT derived in a very scientific manner. Truly an irony in itself..

DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO PUTTING THIS THREAD into the tantrum room.. I tried hard to be objective and non-political in the OP construct.

You said:

I seriously doubt that the general composition of scientists is anywhere near 63% academic and only 15% industry.

Just that one statement shows you have no idea what you are talking about. No where did Pew's research make the claim that the makeup of the people they interviewed match the breakdown of scientists in general.

And when a talented and well respected organization such as PEW presents it's statistical analysis the numbers generally have been weighted to actually represent the US population over all.

I love the page you linked to:

After the way Bush treated scientists with so many fleeing his administration how Republicans disrespect scientists by putting "young earth" believers on government science committees, it amazes me that any Republican would claim a significant number of scientist are Republican.

 

[rdean]

So is "Government, Industry and Non Profit" all part of acadmics?

So far, right wingers have written, "They just can't be correct. A lot of scientists are Republican".

For Gods sakes people, look at your nominees for President. Is John Huntsman the ONLY one who ever even met a scientist face to face?

You guys believe evolution is a lie, science is a faith and climate change a conspiracy. You have as many facts proving there are more Republican scientists than 6% that you do proving the earth is only a few thousand years old.

Thead after thread calling scientists liars and yet you insist lots of republicans are one. (maybe they mean liar and not scientist?)

Hey, Hey, Hey.. That's the spirit.. I've actually made the claim that science also requires faith because some of the theories and facts are too immense for meager minds to visualize. The concept of a Big Bang requires MORE faith and imagination for me then Moses parting the Red Sea. All the matter/energy in the universe on the head of pin? Or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Is there a diff to YOU??

But I've never made the claims about evolution or the age of earth that you refer to. And it's just as likely to me that the majority of new-agers, crystal worshippers, and Wiccans probably vote Democrat. I support people of spirituality and faith -- whatever the source. I don't ridicule them because of scientific purity tests..

When the study has really lop-sided representation from various cohorts that make a big diff to the question you're pointing to -- you have to be careful with breaking down responses in the fashion of your table above. Certainly, you can see that it raised the Repub. and Independ. considerably. So I'd say that maybe the Industry sample is too small to get an accurate reading.. It also reduces the response for Democratic affiliation to below a majority. So if you're happy with only 47% of industry scientists identifying as Democrats -- take a victory lap.. But it probably gets worse with a better industry sample.. Or a meta-analysis gained from multiple studies of this type. But that will probably never happen because only party animals are interested in this factoid.

Your conclusions are also fundamentally flawed by how blindly you assume that DEMOCRATS couldn't possibly be church-going, bible-quoting, people of faith in God. In my neck of the woods -- there are PLENTY of good Southern democrats who would fit that description.. Some of them might even be rocket scientists in Huntsville, or Houston.

PS: I don't support the GOP.. I could vote for one of their meager choices if the Libertarians don't nominate a qualified candidate.

Then you said this: Your conclusions are also fundamentally flawed by how blindly you assume that DEMOCRATS couldn't possibly be church-going, bible-quoting, people of faith in God.

My conclusions? You just pulled that out your butt. I made no such conclusion. In fact, considering the Democratic Party is a coalition party and the Republican Party is 90% white, it's much easier to bunch together the GOP than Democrats. The reason is as obvious as the white on your face. There is no doubt. You are a tard.

 

[mamooth]

Thread summary:

Republitarians didn't like a result. Therefore ... it has to be a liberal conspiracy!

That's basically the same way they look at all science. Heck, it's how they look at all issues.

So, the irony of this thread is how it so hilariously demonstrates the anti-scientific-method nature of the Republitarians. They just don't seem to get that conspiratorial cherrypicking actually does not represent the pinnacle of logical thinking. It's always worked for them before, bringing them status and emotional validation from their anti-science-cult, so why should they change?