Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What you don't know about how the sciences work in academia is a lot. But don't let that stop you.
Thanks, you just demonstrated a common liberal tactic. Wander into a thread or conversation, make a vague comment with no substantiation that is meant to imply something, then quickly leave.
Thanks, you just demonstrated a common liberal tactic. Wander into a thread or conversation, make a vague comment with no substantiation that is meant to imply something, then quickly leave.
No thinking required.
Is this where I'm suppose to say, "A common conservative tactic is to . . . blah blah blah." No thanks. Speaking in such broad strokes typically lead to very poor arguments. But feel free to provide the research experience that you have in the sciences in academia and/or the research that you have done about it that allowed you to make the claims to which I responded. For instance, I'd love to hear about the patents awarded to universities and the amount of money made from them.
Last edited by helenejen; 04-12-2014 at 06:53 PM..
Over the past few days, I keep seeing liberal poster triumphantly slap down the statement that "only 6% of scientists are Republican." Now, interestingly, as I've noted, liberals -- the group that loves to back-pat themselves for being extremely intelligent and scientific -- are just the opposite. What do I mean? Well, someone read about this study, posted it on the Huffington Post, and then a bunch of liberals dutifully started spreading the message. Did any of them go to the source and examine it? Nope. Did any of them think about it? Nope. Huh ...so ...they actually acted like unscientific imbeciles in the middle of proclaiming how smart they were.
If you go to the actual PEW study referenced, you find out that it was a survey of "2,500 scientists in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science." Those scientists were members of that association. If you go to that association, they do not tell you much about themselves, but their board is almost 100% comprised of members of universities. Now, it is unfair and unscientific to presume that their members are similarly predisposed, but it is also unfair and unscientific to assume ANYTHING about how representative their members are of anything in the same manner, which the HuffPo and liberals did. (Addendum: After I wrote this, I looked at their appendix and, fascinatingly, I discovered that "membership to the AAAS is open to all." In other words, there is no evidence that the surveys were not taken by non-scientists who were members.)
Ironically, on the first page of the survey, the same scientists surveyed noted that "about three-quarters (76%) say a major problem for science is that news reports fail to distinguish between findings that are well-founded and those that are not."
Now, also on page one, you find that, unsurprisingly, 87% of the surveyed scientists felt that "lack of funding" was a serious or very serious impediment to research. So? Well, that gives you the first clue as to why they identify as liberal: they get their funding for their research from the government. A majority (56%) say that visa and immigration problems for foreign scientists and students is a problem. The scientists are half as likely as the public (20% vs. 37%) to feel that businesses balance profit with "serving the public interest" (which isn't even a coherent question). Only 40% of scientists, compared with 57% of the public, feel that when the government runs something that it is inefficient and wasteful.
Now, I can go on, but I'm sure someone is saying "what's your point?" The point is that it is unsurprising that scientists polled are more Democrat than Republican because the scientists polled are ones who get their funding from the government and who are entrenched in academia, which is traditionally liberal. In fact, scientists (like teachers, who are overwhelmingly Democrat) are essentially never involved in business -- even in private industry, they just do their research without any actual market pressure.
Interestingly, however, what liberals did was say "scientists are more Democrat than Republican ...therefore Democrats are smarter!" Now, anyone who is actually smart should be fascinated by that statement. I mean, that's basically a self-contained yardstick for intelligence. It's essentially like how liberals make wonderful claims about the "science" of climate change and, in the process of discussing it, commit unbelievable scientific blunders until they just get quiet and say "...well, I have some links ..."
Now, I'm in the process of continuing to evaluate the survey, but that's just based on looking at the FIRST PAGE of this survey (plus the appendix).
You didn't provide a link to the survey so people could check your claims. Here it is:
Reading the actual survey, shows me you are cherry-picking, misrepresenting, making broad generalizations, and creating straw man arguments to attack.
For example:
"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." About the Survey | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
Lumping 'liberals' all together as a monolithic block and making broad generalizations based on what you claim a few 'liberals' posted, is also rather ironically 'unscientific'.
"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." About the Survey | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
That's fantastic, Ceist. However, if you read the actual survey (which I explained), PEW itself notes that membership to the AAAS is open to all. Therefore, nobody cares how they described themselves, since membership remains open to all.
That's fantastic, Ceist. However, if you read the actual survey (which I explained), PEW itself notes that membership to the AAAS is open to all. Therefore, nobody cares how they described themselves, since membership remains open to all.
I read the survey. You are misrepresenting both the sampling methodology and the AAAS. AAAS Members have to provide proofof their qualifications and affiliations. It's not about 'how they describes themselves'. You don't seem to know anything about sampling methodology OR peak bodies and Professional Associations.
"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."
"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."
AAAS Member Categories:
Professional Membership
Postdoc Membership (Requires proof of postdoc affiliation.)
Student Membership (Requires proof of full-time undergraduate or graduate student status.)
Emeritus Membership (For retired members of the Association.)
K12 Teacher Membership (Requires verification of teaching status.)
And that was just exposing ONE of your misrepresentations. No need to waste my time exposing all of them. One example of deliberate deception is enough.
I was a Bio major at UNC and one of the most liberal colleges on the planet.....but helenejen likes to try and make light of that. Not all of us that were on liberal campuses drank the kool-aid. many of us got jobs.
I have a similar story. My first degree was in math. Not a lot of politics (liberal or conservative) there. Only right and wrong answers. You didn't state anything unless you could prove it conclusively. No debate. No decision by consensus.
But then I went back for another degree to the "belly of the beast," so to speak. I attained another degree in what is generally regarded as the most liberal, left-wing of departments in colleges across the nation--English. And the English department I attended was no exception. I'm an open-minded person. I'll listen to any viewpoint. But that doesn't mean I agree with you. I went through every liberal, left-wing class I had to there. Yet, I was not brainwashed by it. I mentally sifted through the doctrine, decided if I agreed or disagreed with it and went from there. Generally I disagreed. Once in a while I agreed or at least partially agreed and it was worth my time to further explore the concepts.
Having gone through that program, there is no way in hell I could be considered even vaguely as a liberal. Then again, I'm often at odds with conservatives on certain issues as well. I think for myself. One thing I DID get out of that uber-liberal program though, is that I know exactly the way a liberal thinks and digests information compared to the rest of us. I know all the big catch-phrase theories and trains of thought espoused by them: post-structural theory, for instance. There are actually some reasonable concepts there... surrounded completely by what can only be considered pie-in-the-sky and unworkable. I know the literary theory and philosophy that they have exported to the broader liberal community. I also know what they ignore, which tends to be anything that counters their stance on an issue. And I understand the alternate thought process they use rather than strict logical argument. They have completely separate set of argument tactics, which does not use a logical base.
Problem is, this liberal vs conservative thing is rather like two people arguing in two different languages. Both sides, of course, feel like they are scoring points. They absolutely do not understand each other's language and thought process. It kind of goes back to that book about relationships that we could convert to political relationships: liberals are from Venus and conservatives are from Mars. The communication is not there because one side is largely arguing from emotion, diversion, and generalization (and quite often a humanistic point of view), and the other is arguing from classical logic-based reasoning on specific points. One side is arguing from the philosophy that there is no right and wrong nor good and evil, per se in the classical sense, and the other side is arguing from a moral stance based on definable good and evil in their eyes.
Two different moral codes. Two different sets of argumentative philosophies. Two different philosophical views of the nature of our existence. Oil and water, essentially. Such philosophical clashes most often end in frustration for both parties. Perhaps we need a divorce for reasons of irreconcilable differences?
Folks out there need to read an old book called "How to Lie with Statistics."
It's easy to recognize in many "studies" and "polls" when you know what to look for and where the dishonesty comes into play. Statisticians can make data say pretty much anything they wish if they are dishonest. They have a LOT of tools, sophisticated software, and mathematical concepts at their disposal and it's not all that unlike an accountant "cooking the books."
You are correct(if I get you right) with polling you really don't need to "cook the books" ... When a polling company is hired by someone they KNOW the outcome the person wants and they know how to write the questions and who to ask to get the result they are looking for, and the questions listed in the poll are not necessarily exactly the same question asked.
I would(most likely) be listed as a white male liberal christian in polling data but I would blow their stats with my answers to most of their questions.
Seriously, that's so sad to be so narrow minded. I love reading all different viewpoints. This is how we grow because it gets us thinking. If your list of people you ignore is so enormous than why are you even here. Sorry, just wondering what the point is.
Must make for a very boring forum too.
Hey I know a website where ALL dissenting viewpoints are deleted and enough you get banned.
You are correct(if I get you right) with polling you really don't need to "cook the books" ... When a polling company is hired by someone they KNOW the outcome the person wants and they know how to write the questions and who to ask to get the result they are looking for, and the questions listed in the poll are not necessarily exactly the same question asked.
I would(most likely) be listed as a white male liberal christian in polling data but I would blow their stats with my answers to most of their questions.
Yes, a statistician (especially in the political sphere) is quite often a "hired gun" that is called in to reach a specific conclusion and make a statement regard such. He/she then uses a huge array of sampling techniques and data manipulation to come to that "correct" conclusion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
