Unlike **tunerX **I’m not so willing to dismiss the poll, my point is that it does not show much of a difference when one takes into account the independents and the recent changes in their composition.
And while I do see woo woo from liberals in government the ones doing most of the misguided efforts based on their beliefs and not caring on what those efforts will mean to future generations, is currently the Tea Party and almost all Republicans.
Wouldn’t you expect people who see themselves as liberals to have more liberal belief systems? What’s so surprising about that and why is that any more of an indictment of their ability to effectively exercise the vote than a belief in typical fundamentalist ideals? Once you’re in the realm of things that require faith, pretty much everything is open to ridicule I would think, so don’t start throwing stones unless you’re willing to catch some.
The 2000 people were selected for a different study. Making a new study out of data for a different study is a coincidence. Controls need to be in place to ensure the study is actually a representative slice of the entire US populace and meet the criteria for people selected. With the US 2000 people is not enough when you are trying to sample from all demographics across all 50 states.
Bigger isn’t better unless you take account for all geographic and demographic areas. with 50 states you get 40 people per state. With 40 people per state and over a dozen demographics per state you are stuck…limited.
For this study demographics and multiple demographics are required. Take this study to MIT. The majority of people are Democratic. 49 percent democratic. 9 percent republican. 9 percent libertarian. A fraction of republicans and libertarians could be classified as identifying with the Tea Party.
In MIT all of them are going to be good in science the original study would not apply here.
Now change the study and collect the same number of tea party and dems and run them through an actual science test. Then compare those numbers. Do this across multiple demographics and states and normalize the numbers.
You are confusing two unrelated senses of the word.
I think understand the meanings in their respective contexts but you may be right that I’m drawing unwarranted implications.
tunerX is exactly right. Increasing sample size simply reduces the standard error but after a certain point it is not effective. With a sample of 2000 to reduce the standard error by half I would need to poll 6000 more people.
What is needed is a proper sampling method and the one being referred to is called a stratified sample where the variable proportions in your sample mirrors the variable proportions in the population. The big problem is what variables do you account for, especially if you want multiple categories so if you determine that 2% of the voting population are Black male Republicans currently in a suburb who grew up in a low socioeconomic household then 2% of your sample needs to be Black male Republicans currently in a suburb who grew up in a low socioeconomic household.
What do you think would happen if the study had asked about Christian woo?
You’d have to define it first. Is exorcism “Christian woo”? Probably. But is prayer?
When asked if they had any kind of religious experience, the response is identical between right and left. 50% of both parties say they have. The number goes 5% higher for Conservatives vs liberals (55% to 50%).
Remember, we’re not talking about just religious belief, but overall scientific attitudes. But the fact is that the large majority of Americans are religious, whether they’re on the right or on the left. As far as I know, the only party that comes close to having a majority of Atheists in it is the Libertarian party.
Back to the topic of general science knowledge, here’s a good summary of the results of the general social survey: Republicans are generally more scientifically literate.
In fact, the only two question areas where Republicans scored worse than Democrats were on evolution and continental drift. In every other way, including general opinions on the value of science, Republicans outscore Democrats.
Didn’t ask that exact question, but this may be relevant.
All that proves is that ideology trumps science - on both sides. Global warming happens to be the most politicized science there is these days, and therefore belief for and against it tends to break more along ideological lines.
The point I’ve been making is that the general Republican antipathy towards global warming science is mostly political, and is not indicative of general science knowledge or affinity for science. Just as liberal opposition to nuclear power tends to grow when Republicans are in power and advocating for it, and opposition to GMO foods by the left has more to do with the fact that GMO foods generally benefit large conglomerates like Monsanto than it does with an overall rejection of science.
The fact is, Republicans and Democrats are about the same when it comes to science. They have the same basic knowledge, because they went to the same schools. The differences show up when science becomes intertwined with politics. Then both sides tend to support/reject science in proportion to how much it helps their own cause or hurts the opposition’s cause. Democrats tend to be more anti-GMO, anti “chemicals” and the like because these are associated with large multinational companies and factory farming, and are therefore a threat to their worldview. And Republicans do the same with Global Warming.
If the science doesn’t have a political angle, the differences tend to vanish. For example, both Republicans and Democrats have an equal number of anti-vaccination nutters. But if that issue ever develops into a political issue that benefits one side or the other, you can bet that opinion will change, and the change will align with partisanship.
The difference is that it’s only the left that goes around preening about being the party of science and being the ‘reality based community’, while calling their opponents anti-science wingnuts. That characterization is demonstrably false.
Assuming that’s true, then how is that the most notable whack jobs like Palin, Bachmann and pretty much every other politician ridiculed for their anti-scientific attitudes happens to Republican? Are we going with the liberal media bias theory here? IOW Democratic politicians are just as stupid but the press doesn’t cover them? Or are Republicans generally smarter but just more hypocritical so they’re happy to vote for people they know are morons as long as they do what they’re elected to do?
Sheila Jackson Lee on her visit to NASA asked if the Mars Pathfinder had taken pictures of the flag planted there by Neil Armstrong. Was that “just as stupid”?
Or, the same Sheila Jackson Lee in 2010:
“Today, we have two Vietnams, side by side, North and South, exchanging and working. We may not agree with all that North Vietnam is doing, but they are living in peace. I would look for a better human rights record for North Vietnam, but they are living side by side.”
I endorse this message.
I think Sam Stone’s quote largely explains it. I would also guess that you (and Dopers in general) tend to read sources that are more likely to hammer Republicans than Democrats.
I think media bias is part of it, but a bigger part is that the areas where Republicans happen to be more ‘anti-science’ are two very big hot-button issues that are constantly in the news.
It also might be confirmation bias on your part, since we tend to notice things that confirm to our own biases and ignore the things that don’t. The Democrats in Congress have uttered some incredibly stupid things when it comes to science. But you don’t hear about them because you don’t read conservative news sources that talk about them, and your own side ignores them. And Republicans do the same.
Boxer and DeFazio introduce federal GMO labeling bill
Since there is zero evidence that GMO foods are a risk for anyone, you might as well sponsor a bill that requires food to be labeled if it was shipped in a Ford truck. That’s equally relevant.
Then there’s Sheila Jackson Lee, who, when visiting NASA’s Jet Propulsion lab, asked if the Mars Pathfinder had managed to get a photo of the flag left on Mars by Neil Armstrong. Oh, and she’s a member of the House Subcommittee on Space.
“We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included.” - Barack Obama
And just because you’re an advocate of Global Warming reduction doesn’t mean you understand science:
“And if [Arctic ice melt] gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap.” - Henry Waxman
One of my favorites, from Democrat Congressman Hank Johnson:
I love the Admiral’s response: A deadpan, “We don’t anticipate that.”
I don’t really follow politics except very casually but you’re right about my sources probably being biased. However the example Ter gave, is one thing, that’s just plain old stupidity I would argue. Actually arguing against things like evolution or cosmology is something very different and I just don’t see anything that extreme getting swept under the rug. I mean if you had prominent Dems arguing that reincarnation be taught in schools or IDK, something equally anti-scientific, I’m pretty sure that would get at least SOME attention.
Sam Stone: I see what you’re saying, but my point is there is a line between garden variety stupid and anti-intellectual. I see plenty of stupid on both sides, no doubt. Show me the anti-intellectual though.
You make a good point with the anti-vax and similar nonsense, but then the real question becomes, are these just stupid people who have been misled, or is it the result of dogmatism? Because THAT is what I see as being the crucial difference. I see the wacky pubs as being dogmatic while I see most wacky dems as just being garden variety idiots.
The GMO propaganda is equally unscientific, and arguably more damaging. GMO and nuke power are two issues that are a litmus test to see if a person who considers themselves to be progressive gets their information on technical issues from the ranks of the scientifically literate. Usually it is obvious that they have been informed by activists who are always too busy deconstructing the dominant paradigm and saving the world from corporations to ever take any mid or upper level math or science courses.