I was asked to start a thread on the PIPA report in this thread. Maeglin was kind enough to start one (a very good one) here in response. I was going to append my comments there, but really my comments are of a very different nature than Maeglin’s. The Maeglin thread concentrates on technical problems with the report, and I have many concerns to add in that vein that I will in that thread. My bigger concern however is the money behind the report.
The PIPA report is funded (exclusively, as near as I can tell) by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Now, the Rockefeller Brothers fund has done a lot of good things, and I don’t want to try to demonize them here. But being good isn’t the same as being non-partisan. And they are decidedly partisan, on the left, and decidedly on the anti-Bush side of things.
For example, they are a major funder of the Funders Network on Trade and Globalization (www.fntg.org), who currently lead their web site with the declaration:
There are many scientific reasons to be disappointed with the PIPA report. But if you really want to see what drives things, follow the money. The PIPA report was funded by people who had an interest and a desire to see President Bush discredited. When the cigarette people fund research that shows cigarettes aren’t so bad for you, reasonable people take it with a grain of salt. And reasonable people should take the PIPA report with the same attitude.
Buggers the question. So far, I have your word that the Rockefeller people are “left wing”. But you consider just about anyone to the left of Kubai Khan to be “left wing”, so that’s moot. Are you trying to suggest that any survey done by anyone who doesn’t match your criteria for political correctness must necessarily be flawed? Or are you stating something more simple, that the whole thing must be a cooked up job, because you don’t agree with the politics of the funders? Because that’s all you’ve given us so far. Have you any actual evidence, beyond your own prejudices?
State yourself plainly, if you please. Are you saying they are lying from front to back? Can you prove it?
I try to take all reports, from either side, with a grain of salt. I try. Really. I understand that everyone has a different view and different priorotiies. So, no biggy. Likewise, who funded it may “warn” me to see where the report(s) might be skewed. But, that would not mean it is all garbage - Note: I haven’t read any of it so I can’t really judge it.
On the other hand, it would also be easy using your logic, to discount any reports from the opposite side of the fence by yelling “follow the money”.
Maybe we should disregard all reports?
Still, to be called Vulcans is a bad thing? Vulcans live by logic, undistorted by emotion. They deal only in fact and scientifically rigorus theory. They are smart. So, where’s the insult in it?
Well, even if your claim that this PIPA group…or its funders…has a bias holds true, that means only that we should look at the methodology carefully, not that we should reject it out of hand. Here the methodology is pretty straightforward. They had this Knowledge Networks organization, apparently a reputable polling firm, ask the questions that you can see at the PIPA website. (Well, you can see some of them…Other questions are marked “to be released”…Don’t know if they have been released yet.)
So, yes, if the group might have a bias, you should probably understand what they did more closely but I don’t think you should dismiss it out-of-hand. After all, nearly all of the naysayer scientists on global warming seem to have strong connections to fossil fuel companies (like Western Fuels Association and American Petroleum Institute) and/or connections to right-wing think-tanks (like Cato Institute or George C. Marshall fund). And, while that gives me pause and means I think one needs to examine their research closely, it does not mean I am entitled to simply dismiss it all out-of-hand. And, indeed, when people like Richard Lindzen have published theories like his “iris theory” for a negative feedback due to clouds in global warming, it has gotten serious consideration in the scientific community. They haven’t just said, “Well, Lindzen has been funded by Western Fuels and seems to express a libertarian outlook so we don’t even have to consider his theory.”
As I noted in that thread, the only part of the critique of the PIPA study that I find at all reasonable is the claim that one might be able to come up with a set of factual questions related to national policy where Kerry supporters would do considerably worse than Bush supporters in getting the answer factually correct. However, that is at this point merely conjecture and I haven’t even heard any good conjectures on what those questions might be (although I am willing to believe that people could come up with some where the conjecture might at least have some plausibility).
And, at any rate, the PIPA study showed a quite broad range of important foreign policy topics over which the reverse was true; so, one would hope that such a counterstudy would also cover a quite broad range of important topics.
Uh, no. I thought I was pretty clear, in case I wasn’t: I’m claiming that scientific proofs coming from a party with a clear bias in the outcome of that proof are suspect. The more biased, the more suspect.
So, of your post, the only complaint of substance that I’ve seen thus far is that perhaps I haven’t proven that RBF isn’t left wing, that I’m claiming they have a bias only because I have a bias.
A little research shows them to have a very left-wing bias. Here’s another example:
The Chair of RBF is Steven Rockefeller. One of Mr. Rockefeller’s favorite projects is the Earth Charter. He built this with some other people:
Ted Turner
The Earth Council is run by Maurice Strong. Mr. Strong is also a special advisor to Kofi Annan, and serves on the board of Ted Turner’s UN Foundation.
But wait, there’s more.
RBF funded the study itself. But PIPA exists because of it’s own funders. Let’s look at their foundation sponsors:
Rockefeller Foundation
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Tides Foundation
Ford Foundation
German Marshall Fund of the United States
Compton Foundation
Carnegie Corporation
Benton Foundation
Ben and Jerry’s Foundation
Americans Talk Issues Foundation
Circle Foundation
A modicum of searching shows these to be largely leftist organizations.
And does the Tides Foundation ring a bell? One of Mrs. Kerry’s little projects! That’s right; John Kerry’s wife has donated $4m+ to the Tides Foundation, which is one of the foundation sponsors of PIPA, which did a study that shows that John Kerry supporters are more knowledgable than supporters of his competition.
And you don’t find this fishy? Honestly? I mean would you really accept a study claiming Democrats are dumber than Republicans funded by Jeb Bush? Honestly?
The problem, and I don’t even know why I’m explaining it when it’s unlikely you’ll care, is that you have to prove something is wrong with the study, not the people funding it. What’s wrong with the methodology? Is there some reason to think the questions are biased or the data was cherry-picked, or do you just want to find a reason not to believe what they say because you don’t like it?
:rolleyes: No, I’m just worried you’ll hurt yourself. This guilt-by-association-by-association-by-association thing you’re trying looks like a real stretch.
The problem, and I don’t even know why I’m explaining it when it’s unlikely you’ll care, is that you have to prove something is wrong with the study, not the people funding it. What’s wrong with the methodology? Is there some reason to think the questions are biased or the data was cherry-picked, or do you just want to find a reason not to believe what they say because you don’t like it?
:rolleyes: No, I’m just worried you’ll hurt yourself. This guilt-by-association-by-association-by-association thing you’re trying looks like a real stretch.
We’re in complete agreement. Which is why I said what you did, that the report is highly suspect, not that it was discardable.
Ah, my innocent friend. See, the thing is, somebody decided what questions to ask. And that’s where the control of things happens. Somebody who was funded by John Kerry supporters wrote the questions.
But in this case, it’s worse than just asking questions designed to show flaws in one way. As you point out, better than half of the questions asked have not been made public. Why do you suppose that is? Could it possibly be that those questions didn’t support analyst’s conclusions? You don’t really think the questions and answers were censored for our protection, do you?
Also, data was collected on the intent of the participant to vote. But that wasn’t released. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be that those more likely to vote were less ignorant? That would certainly be logical, but it wouldn’t support the analysts conclusion.
I literally don’t know how to respond to that. You’re telling me that you don’t have a problem with John Kerry’s wife pouring money into a study that promotes his campaign, that this is a real stretch? I don’t know what to say. I just think that such things give a rational person a need to question things.
Oh, and I neglected to mention that Theresa Heinz Kerry has also been a board member of the Carnegie Corporation and the Carnegie Foundation, which as you see above are also funders of PIPA.
Still no technical post from you in the other thread, Bill. Do you agree with the use of the null hypothesis “Bush and Kerry supporters believed those factually incorrect statements equally”, and that the data rejects that null hypothesis even under the most rigorous statistical thresholds commonly used in scientific tests?
Your beef here appears to be that there might have been all kinds of other results, and that these specific ones were cherry picked.
Even if this was the case, are these results not shocking themselves?
I’ll get there, but not tonight. Sorry, I’ve been busy. I have been reading the thread with interest though.
No, I don’t agree with that hypothesis.
In fact, I do think that Bush supporters are more ignorant about some things, and that Kerry supporters are more ignorant about some things. I think that there’s a grain of truth in the PIPA report. What I disagree with is the degree that was conveyed (which I believe was intentionally inaccurate), and more importantly, I disagree with the notion that the ignorance displayed was the whole of the ignorance conversation. I believe there are many items where Kerry supporters would (on average) be more ignorant of that are equally important.
Yes, that’s right. And I believe that’s point enough to be considered.
I’m not shocked to find there’s ignorance in the world, no. But I am disappointed to see it distilled and processed to the exclusive benefit of one party, and then used by others (I’m looking at you Stoid) as a general statement about the world.
Come off it. You wrote nothing of the sort. You showed that she gave money to one of the numerous groups that funded the study. Not that she “poured money into the study.” I think you know what the difference is, which doesn’t speak well for your argument.
Yes, just as I needed to question your post because you didn’t show what you claimed. You still haven’t, just as you still haven’t answered all those questions about the methodology of the study.
Marley23, I’d like a straight answer: Do you or do you not find the direct connections of left wing organizations in general, and less direct (but still substantial) connections of Theresa Heinz Kerry in specific to the PIPA report something that should be considered in evaluating how balanced it is?
No. The study should be considered on its own merits, and I think focusing on a tangential connection to Teresa Heinz-Kerry is a way of avoiding the issue. If a Republican group does another study and finds similar gaps in the knowledge of Kerry supporters, I think that proves your point by itself. For that matter, if other studies either support or discredit PIPA’s conclusions, that would also speak for itself.
Well, [erhaps you could point to a rigorous study funded by, say, the Project for the New American Century which actually shows such results? Until then, you would just be arguing ad ignorantiam.
Well, good news for you…Here is the survey with all the questions! Looks like it’s been out for a while (since Oct 28). It is just that they presented in a separate story. It is clearly the same survey since the dates of the survey match and the questions that were previously released match.
And, alas, I don’t think it bears out your conjecture of why the survey was not released. Rather, it looks like they were not released simply because these questions did not bear on the issue of attitudes on questions for which there is a good factual answer. So, PIPA chose to divide discussion of the survey into two parts focussing on the different aspects of it! (Here is the report itself on the survey and here is the press release which you’ll note is dated prior to the election by several days.) Looks like your conjecture on their motivation for holding back releasing some of the questions is dead in the water. Not surprising actually since PIPA is part of the School of Public Affairs at U of Maryland and it would be a rather dramatic breach of academic conduct if they were found to be cherry-picking their data like you suspected.
Just to nitpick, two of the questions are still “to be released.” Not that this validates Bill’s criticism in any way. If the authors actually selected on the dependent variable, then the whole thing is dead in the water. I find this highly unlikely.
Although, it would be nice to actually see their data set just to make sure.