Thread: Pew Poll Re Political Affiliation of Scientists

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

meaningless. I would be willing to bet if you took a poll of people with H.S Diplomas and College Grads and those with Grad Degrees you'd find the higher the education the more liberal the person, in general. Also with college grads the field they majored in will dictate the degree of being liberal or not. Actually many science majors are more conservative than say Social Science majors.

Why is this meaningless? It's rather telling, in my book.

You see, I think you are right--there is a general positive correlation between level of education and political liberality; and of course, for the uneducated that is a particularly damning fact. "Book Smarts is for sissies!", and "colleges breed liberals" and all that nonsense (the assumption that education makes people LESS capable of making up their own minds about their political affiliation is rather weak, but there you go) are pretty common creeds coming from both the popular conservative base and the (rather ironically) highly educated conservative "elite."

This, in turn, tells me that ignorance is valued by conservatives, as is a lack of critical thinking skills. Which of course makes for an easily manipulated voting public...

Originally Posted by JimR

This, in turn, tells me that ignorance is valued by conservatives, as is a lack of critical thinking skills.

It doesn't tell you that, you just heard what you were told to hear!

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

It doesn't tell you that, you just heard what you were told to hear!

So you're telling me that what I was told was, in fact, what I was told to hear, rather than what I was ACTUALLY told?

My God! Thank you for telling me!

Originally Posted by JimR

Why is this meaningless? It's rather telling, in my book.

I actually agree that it's meaningless, and I'll explain my position.

Simply saying "scientists" is simply too broad of a term. Most of the members of M.U.F.O.N. are considered "scientists." However, they're also nut jobs.

Dr. Phil. Scientist, and moron.

Cryptozoologists...

Homeopathologist...

Al Gore...



I could go on, but why bother? I'm sure you get the point: simply being a "scientist" does not mean that a person is intelligent or even sane.

Now, if they were to say that there is a strong correlation between being a physicist with at least one Phd, and published in at least 2 professional journals and a particular view, I'd find that both meaningful and quite interesting.

As far as a correlation between further education and intelligence, once again there is no meaningful information without a more specific look at the statistics.

Person A might have a Phd. in Women's studies, any racial study, psychology (not a medical degree in psychiatry, just psychology), or any of dozens and dozens of other essentially useless degrees which require nothing more than spending enough years sitting in class rooms and regurgitatting what you're told.


Person B has a humble Associates Degree in mechanical engineering.

Who do you think is more inteligent?



Then, it also fails to take the age of the participants in the survey into account. The educational system in the United States is INCREDIBLY liberal. When I was in college, just a few years ago, I had to stomach a constant diet of liberal propaganda from teachers, administrators, fellow students, special interest groups that were welcomed on campus, etc. It's very difficult to NOT be swayed when you are continually barraged by one particular viewpoint for 19 years (the bare minimum amount of time for most people to go from kindergarten to a Phd)

Did they compare the statistics between people who were still furthering their education, to people who were recent graduates, to those who had been out of school for 5, 10 and 20 years?

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "Any man in his youth who is not a liberal has no heart. Any man in his age who is not a conservative has no brain."


Last but not least, having majored in mathematics in college, I'd like to point out that statistics are more or less useless without VERY carefull and highly controlled interpretation. I'll give just one amuzing example of this, but there are countless examples to be had.

About 4 or 5 years ago, a major study was done to compare the sexual habits of men and women. (At UCLA if I remember correctly)

Only heterosexual adults were included in the study.

Only sexual encounters after the age of 18 were counted.

Only very specific types of sexual encounters with the opposite sex were counted.

The questions were designed to remove all ambiguity, and were worded in such a way that there was no room for interpretation by study participants.

The study was 100% anonymous.

The study found that the average woman had been with 3.4 sexual partners, while the average man had been with 7.1 sexual partners.

For about a week, this study was touted as irrefutable proof that men are far more sexually promiscuous than women, until a senior mathematics professor (from Harvard if I remember correctly) pointed out that because roughly 51% of the population is female, and 49% male, it is mathematically impossible for the results from men and women to be that different. Even considering the "prostitute effect" as he called it, where in a tiny number of women are prostitutes who could have each had hundreds or thousands of partners, and yet been a small enough group to be under-represented in the study, there's no way that men could be averaging more than double the number of sexual partners.


So, a study that claimed to prove that men are more promiscuous than women, and appeared to do so when taken at face value, really proved something else entirely. Namely, it proved that Americans will lie about how many sexual partners they've had even when anonymously participating in a scientific study.

"I actually agree that it's meaningless, and I'll explain my position. Simply saying "scientists" is simply too broad of a term. Most of the members of M.U.F.O.N. are considered "scientists." However, they're also nut jobs."

---Here's a quote from the Pew website as to how they conducted their poll:

About the Scientist Survey

Results for the scientist survey are based on 2,533 online interviews conducted from May 1 to June 14, 2009 with members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International. A sample of 9,998 members was drawn from the AAAS membership list excluding those who were not based in the United States or whose membership type identified them as primary or secondary-level educators.

Founded in 1848, AAAS is the world’s largest general scientific society, and includes members representing all scientific fields. AAAS publishes Science, one of the most widely circulated peer-reviewed scientific journals in the world. Membership in AAAS is open to all.

Each person sampled was mailed a letter on stationery with logos of both the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and AAAS. The letter was signed by Andrew Kohut, President of the Pew Research Center and Alan I. Leshner, Chief Executive Officer of AAAS. These letters were intended to introduce the survey to prospective respondents, describe the nature and purpose of the survey and encourage participation in the survey. The advance letter contained a URL and a password for a secure website where the survey could be completed. The letter also included a toll-free number for respondents to call if they had questions.

Subsequent requests to complete the survey were sent to those who had not yet responded. These requests were sent by e-mail for those who could be contacted this way (three e-mail reminders were sent) and by postal mail for members who had told AAAS they preferred not be contacted by e-mail (a postcard and letter reminder were sent).

A total of 1,411 of the 5,816 sampled members in the e-mail group completed the interview for a response rate of 24%. In the mail group, 1,122 members of the 4,182 sampled completed the survey for a response rate of 27%. The overall response rate for the study was 25% (2,533 completes/9,998 sampled members). Nearly all respondents completed the survey online; however, a very small number requested to complete the survey in another mode; twenty interviews were completed by telephone.

Nonresponse in surveys can produce biases in survey-derived estimates because participation may vary for subgroups of a population, who may differ on questions of substantive interest. In order to correct for these biases, weighting is often employed.

To evaluate the possibility of nonresponse bias in the scientist survey, respondent characteristics from the obtained sample were compared with known characteristics of the population, based on membership and demographic information in the AAAS membership database. For most characteristics the sample was very representative of the population of all members. The most notable differences were that the sample underrepresented student members and overrepresented those with emeritus status. There also were differences in response rates between those who could be contacted by e-mail and those for whom no e-mail address existed or e-mail contact was not permitted. To correct these potential biases, the data were weighted so that the sample matched the two parameters of contact mode and member category from the AAAS membership database.

The following table shows the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the scientist survey:

The AAAS includes scientists from such areas of study as dentistry, general science, geography, history and philosophy of science, linguistics, political science, and social science. Nothing against dentists, but uhh, my dentist isn't exactly on the cutting edge of oral health research.

Furthermore, it appears that all you have to do to gain membership is prove that you have a PhD. So, yet again, all it means is these "scientists" are persistent.

"it appears that all you have to do to gain membership is prove that you have a PhD"

guess they're handing out PhD's to just about anyone these days...

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

"it appears that all you have to do to gain membership is prove that you have a PhD"

guess they're handing out PhD's to just about anyone these days...

There are many PhD's that require years of hard work, original research, high intelligence, etc.

However, there ARE many PhD's that require nothing more than having the money to pay for enough years of college, and the patience to sit through enough classes.

So, one more time with feeling, simply having a PhD doesn't not guarantee that a person is intelligent, or even sane.

Not to discount the people that have or get PhDs, but persistence pays off when it comes to this stuff. I've met enough blathering idiots who can add Dr. to the front of their name that I'm not convinced it's something out of my (or anyone else's) reach.

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

Not to discount the people that have or get PhDs, but persistence pays off when it comes to this stuff. I've met enough blathering idiots who can add Dr. to the front of their name that I'm not convinced it's something out of my (or anyone else's) reach.

Trust me. It isn't out of most peoples reach, just out of the realm of what they are willing to do.