A full 87 percent of American scientists see their political alignment as Democrat or Independent, according to a new Pew Research poll.
Surprisingly or not, just six percent declared themselves Republican, and only nine percent overall expressed support of conservative ideology.
From the data summary:
Most Americans do not see scientists as a group as particularly liberal or conservative. Nearly two-thirds of Americans (64%) say they think of scientists as “neither in particular”; 20% see them as politically liberal and 9% say they are politically conservative.
In contrast, most scientists (56%) perceive the scientific community as politically liberal; just 2% think scientists are politically conservative. About four-in-ten scientists (42%) concur with the majority public view that scientists, as a group, are neither in particular.
The scientists’ belief that the scientific community is politically liberal is largely accurate. Slightly more than half of scientists (52%) describe their own political views as liberal, including 14% who describe themselves as very liberal. Among the general public, 20% describe themselves as liberal, with just 5% calling themselves very liberal.
These figures should only be surprising to someone who neglected current events during the Bush administration, which was accused of censoring and intimidating scientists on matters from global warming to medical research and nuclear weapons.
It's safe to say that being treated like an unwanted step-child, along with continued, eye-widening nonsense like this, has not engendered much love of Republicanism in the scientific community.
-- Stephen C. Webster
They don't let whites be scientists any more. Ph.D. programs don't admit whites. They want slaves from India and China.
And and disproportionate number of those 6% are mostly at Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia National Laboratories.
Actually, technical PhD programs in the US are very eager to admit Americans, for many reasons, including the language skills, and the citizenship (lots of grant money is restricted to US citizens).
The real problem is that fewer and fewer Americans are going into the sciences - probably because we have craptacular boards of education pushing pseudo-scientific tripe like "intelligent design" in the classroom. (Yeah, and I'm from Texas. *shudder*)
Scientists tend to be liberal because they actually tend to think critically. Unfortunately, this is not the case for Americans at large. And so our great country will continue is slow, arduous collapse into irrelevance, hopefully not destroying the rest of the world in the process....
This is easy. Scientists are educated. Only the uneducated water-carriers for corporations proudly/foolishly say they're CONServatives.
Is it significant that the states that voted Republican in the 2008 US
presidential selection tend to be lower in K-12 education, lower in
public health scores and lower in per capita GDP?[1]
[1] http://www.stmartinsystems.com/090524_Republican_Party.pdf
http://www.stmartinsystems.com/090524_Republican_Party.htm
Scientists must be open to new experience and have the ability to push aside their preconceived notions in every experiment they perform.
Republicans, or Conservatives, have a more difficult time ignoring their preconceived notions and performing an experiment without bias. For example, how many hardcore Republicans can you find in the genetic engineering field. Very few!
This TED Talk about "openness to experience" offers excellent supporting evidence for the "why republicans aren't scientists" thesis.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
This is wonderful! A simple article that says it all in a way that cannot be refuted. The GOP is finished.
Well on behalf of those who like uttering tired, overplayed and simplistic colloquial expressions may I just say... duh.
Science, Education, Art, Humanities, and Social Justice are all part of an Enlightenment temperament. Observe reality, ask questions, test and challenge authority to progress and advance knowledge and the human condition.
The Dark Ages suit authoritarian, dominionists republicans because it is the only way they can try to force others to obey and follow their criminal, stupid, dangerous climate collapsing, economic destroying, bill of rights booting, fascist ways.
Unfortunately Americans are not taught to think critically. And they should as part of the school curriculum, be taught logic. You do not need to be a scientist to use your faculty for critical thinking.
I despair of just how backward our educational system is at this point. Our public schools are now second rate. We used to have the best system in the world. Now it is less then adequate for our needs.
As far as the political leanings of those in the scientific community, the reason is obvious. Some philosophy's chain the mind. They can rob an intellect of the kind of curiosity needed to expand the sum of knowledge. It does not mean that anyone who embraces the GOP, will not be of a scientific bent. It does sometimes mean a more restrictive attitude toward thinking out of the box when needed. This is sometimes what I found. Although this may simply be my own experience rather then what others may have found. I am an Independent and not part of the other two party's.
The first thing that came to mind reading the article is a summary of what most people have said already.
Reality has a liberal bias
And science is the study of reality. You can't be a good scientist without having a reasonably clear notion of reality, and when a person with a grasp of reality starts operating in other fields, the social sciences, this habit of thinking in reality carries over. That means that dealing with reality requires you to think like a liberal, which is what is happening.
It's about time something like this was put together. I think in addition to the real as well as just perceived 'attacks on science' during the Bush years, I have to wonder if part of it stems from their significant economic dependence on a (ironically un-democratic) dying higher-ed system that is the darling of the left/teachers unions.
Next, lets have survey done to show how many scientists are actually being productive in their fields of study vs just camping out in a tenured position and spending their time (and our tax & tuition dollars) creating data to suit their preconceived notions. I shouldn't be so harsh, everybody needs to eat...
If it weren't for corporate money and stolen elections, the conservative movement would have died out a long time ago.
"everybody needs to eat..."
Everyboy needs to think - try it!
This poll is rather reassuring, but by using the AAAS members as their poll subjects, I wonder if they are getting a true cross section of US scientists. Since the 80's, I've been working around scientists with MS and PhD degrees, and they are by and large very, often frighteningly, conservative. These are geologists and geophysicists using science everyday to explore for petroleum. I doubt many of them are AAAS members. But they are scientists, like it or not.
of course ... the smartest, most sophisticated, most educated people are NEVER conservatives nor Repuglicans ... and the U.S. scientists know who will fund their research ... not the Christo-fascist idiots looking for the Rapture
What the hell is wrong with the other 6%? They should be fired for stupidity. I'll bet they are the ones teaching Creationism in the Xian "colleges".
It is a mistake to take these people too seriously, and it has nothing to do with their political ideology.
Any group that is REWARDED for alarmism and exist by virtue of the same via grant money, should be heavily scrutinized.
We don't automatically trust "scientific" data from drug makers regarding the merits of their own products for the same reason.. The profit motive.
I am a scientist.
Successful scientists must be independent, critical thinkers in examining nature. That means, scientists usually have no tolerance of ignorant preachers explaining nature to them.
So, that kinda excludes them from the GOP, which is a rule-based organization.
The education of a scientist is transformative. When they first catch a group (e.g., preachers) in error (e.g., the moon emits light), then everything opens up for questioning and examining. From this point forward, the first response of scientists to an assertion is "Why? Why? Why? I don't accept it until I understand the proof."
I know some scientists who are Republicans. They do not apply their reasoning abilities to social justice issues. I find it shocking that they can do their view of nature and society, and they are at home in the GOP. For the ones I know, racism is the main problem, and that leads to an unwillingness to pay taxes to subsidize "undeserving" people (= blacks and immigrants). Lucky for the USA, the number is only about 6%. They are steadfast in that they would rather the USA slide backwards than attempt to advance in social justice (= "free rides").
I don't know any scientists who are right-wing christians. It is just too hard to research nature with an open mind and then submit to ignorant preachers. (Most of us find it very hard to be at funerals and weddings in a church and not burst into laughter during the prayers.)
Engineers see nature differently than scientists, and their training is directed toward application of known principles. For them, the main question is not "Why/" but "How". If there was a poll of them, I suspect that over 50% would be Republican. Hope not, but I fear it's so.
Your fucking republicans are too busy with their christer schools and creationist bullshit to produce scientists. They've been screwing with science for centuries--they would still be putting people in the gallows for thinking the world is round. If they had their way, you would be watching TV by candle light.
"So, that kinda excludes them from the GOP, which is a rule-based organization."
This is one of the rock stupidest things I have ever read.. (the only current competition being the post above yours. Which is equally nonsensical)
As any independent observer can tell you, and as any independent minded person can plainly see, the left has ITS OWN rigorous orthodoxy that cannot be deviated from in any way..
What you're doing, Mr. (ahem) "Scientist" is nothing more than stereotyping. The exact same accusation, closed minded, accusation you spent and entire post broad brushing republican dissenters with.
I do agree with one point you made, however. Those of us with experience or a background in virtually any type of engineering are much less likely to be lockstep democrats. (Or republicans for that matter)
The reason for this is simple. You see, unlike the nonsense barfed up by catchall "scientists" our solutions CAN BE TESTED AND ACTUALLY HAVE TO WORK! EVERY TIME, ALL THE TIME!
Engineering solutions simply don't allow the luxury of dreaming up untestable drivel and promulgating it as "science"
"Your fucking republicans are too busy with their christer schools and creationist bullshit to produce scientists."
You aren't smart enough to be on the internet..
There are plenty of hard sciences which aren't subject to the whims and utter bullshit which permeates the ranks of starry eyed, liberal, pseudo-scientists questing for retardation like "social justice"
Think about us the next time you turn on a light switch or climb on an airplane.
Solutions in the hard sciences have to be demonstrable, and must work reliably and repeatably. Engineers are creating actual, workable solutions while you pseudo-scientific dinks naval gaze and postulate ever more ridiculous theories which have no real relevance to anything and couldn't be proven even if they did.
I thought it would be more like 0%.
Jhoffa_ said:
"As any independent observer can tell you, and as any independent minded person can plainly see, the left has ITS OWN rigorous orthodoxy that cannot be deviated from in any way.. "
And what exactly IS that? Care to be specific?
What's the "evil left"s agenda? Health care coverage for all?
"as any independent minded person can plainly see, the left has ITS OWN rigorous orthodoxy that cannot be deviated from in any way.."
Nice try... For better or worse, the Democratic party has every conceivable diversity of interest group clamoring within it's tent.
All the Republicans have left are the corporate war machine kleptomaniacs, and Hypocritical right-wing religious fanatics. That is why ther are going to be losing elections for quite some time outside the deep red south.
Here's the "right"s agenda:
- Lower taxes on the super rich who have ALL THE MONEY.
- Redact scientific reports.
- Blend church and state.
- Torture people.
- Ban gay marriage.
- Pre-emptive wars bases on lies, costing us trillions of dollars during a financial crisis.
- Outing CIA agents.
I can go on and on...
What's the "left"s agenda?
- Wiretap all Americans, BEFORE 9/11 happened...btw...
- have secret CIA assassination squads
- meddle in other country's elections
Please! Jhoffa! The "right" ruined this country!
- Politicizing the DOJ
They friggin' LIED us into TWO wars! And cost us thousands of Americans' lives, millions of Iraqi civilians, TENS-OF-THOUSANDS of American casualties, and counting!
"Nice try... For better or worse, the Democratic party has every conceivable diversity of interest group clamoring within it's tent."
Meaningless..
Your diversity doesn't equate to independent thought.. It is simply not permitted.
Social and environmental issues come to mind, as well as religious tolerance.
Liberals are the biggest bunch of bigots and conformists on the planet. You shame even republicans in this regard. Read some of the comments on this site for examples, they are too numerous to list here.
"They friggin' LIED us into TWO wars! "
And WHO funded those wars, eh?
Why do they persist?
You're a fool Dan, and your list is silly.
He who pays the piper calls the tune.. Partisan hacks merely dance to it.
- Neutered the FDA and put businessman cronies in important public safety agencies
- $5 gas
Jhoffa_
Schizophrenia, as in your case (since you endlessly talk to yourself), was treated by your "christer" scientists back in the day as "demon" possessed beings who had to be drown, burned, etc. as the "cure". Just think, without todays medicine from "scientists", you could be watching your TV with the sound off.
Jhoffa_
Thanks for being the person in charge of RawStory for deciding "who" is able to be "on" the "internets"
Such a nazi.
YOU are silly! Listen to Rush Limbaugh much?
jhoffa: Why don't we tackle it from THIS angle: tell us some good things about the 8 years of the Bush administration...
Why do you assume I like the Democrats, btw?
Here we go...Jhoffa is an arrogant prick who likes to attack anyone and everyone he incorrectly assumes he is smarter than. He accuses others of stereotyping then does the exact same thing. Which, of course, only proves that he can't put together an argument that is not hypocritical nonsense. This is a guy who refers to the democratic party as the "democrat" party. Why? Because his inability to get beyond his own ego prevents him from acting like a petulant two year old and realizing that "democratic" is a title, not a description. Typical piece of shit self satisfied commenter who has convinced himself that he knows everything and anyone who disagrees with him is a moron. He is entertaining though, I'll give him that.
"This is a guy who refers to the democratic party as the "democrat" party. Why?"
Because there is NOTHING "DEMOCRATIC" about the democrat party from their love of central planning and their hatred for ballot initiates to their own primaries.
There is POSSIBLY ONE (1) issue (And even it is debatable and opposed by the President himself) they wish to return to the States via the tenth. All other matters are to be federalized.
Even their so called "Primaries" are a punchline.. There "Super Delegates" are trusted to make decisions because their constituency is deemed to be too ignorant to be trusted.
There is NOTHING "democratic" about that bunch.. At all. In any way.
You're fooling yourselves.
It's a title, not a description. Grow up.
"Why don't we tackle it from THIS angle: tell us some good things about the 8 years of the Bush administration..."
That's pretty slim fucking pickings there Dan.. I'd say rejecting Koyoto and the ICC were winners. (If we had a competent congress we could try our own war criminals, thank you) Curtailing taxpayer subsidized abortion funding was a win.
Not much else really.. Hardly surprising, considering Bush was a drunken loser and a proven war criminal.
His "tax cuts" would have been a win, but they weren't really cuts. They were targeted at the wealthy and, to compound the error, were paid for by borrowing from future generations.. In this sense, his "cuts" were actually a brand new tax on fetuses. A fetus tax. You can't "cut" taxes and run deficits.. It's impossible. If you try, you're just changing who pays!
"It's a title.."
Then get over it already.. and stop whining like a faggot.
It turns out that most scientists are NOT STUPID ENOUGH
to be Republicans.
"...whining like a faggot" So as well as being against women's healthcare the two year old is also homophobic. Couldn't see that one coming.
TO: Jhoffa
You are WHINING by complaining about the writer of "it's a title"...R U A FAGGOT 2 ?
How about an immature FRAT-BRAT?
In any case, you do sound "pissy".
"So as well as being against women's healthcare..."
I'm FOR healthcare, Steve.. Women fetuses included.
And "homophobic" is really a stupid tag to be tossing around.
Mental defectives projecting their affliction on others like this is a really sad thing to behold..
I reckon something about the anus cult does that to people.
@ darkle
Dear Darkie..
Please don't take this the wrong way but..
Wait! Scratch That!
Ya know, on second though, take it any fucking way you please!
You aren't smart enough to address me. On the internet. In person. Ever. Anywhere.
This is why I don't bother to reply to you.
Thanks! All the best!
Jhoffa_
"anus cult" Yeah. No homophobia there.
"Mental defectives projecting their affliction on others like this is a really sad thing to behold.." Don't be so hard on yourself, kid.
"You aren't smart enough to address me. On the internet. In person. Ever. Anywhere. "
See my first comment re Jhoffa. You make it too easy.
"anus cult" Yeah. No homophobia there. "
I don't see any..
Ya know, maybe if gays didn't use the lowest common denominator (Where they put their junk) to self identify, they wouldn't have all this built up resentment and angst for those of us who choose to behave normally?
Srsly, what (normal) man wouldn't want to identify with something higher! Some higher aspiration or accomplishment? What they wrote. Who they helped. What they built. The problems they solved. Their academic achievement. basically ANY HIGHER CALLING THAN JAMMING THEIR DICK IN SOME GUYS ASSHOLE BEHIND A REST STOP SOMEWHERE!
To self identify as a faggot is a sad, sad thing.. Men are the greatest creatures the universe has to boast. Reducing and equating them with perverse sexual practices is REALLY choosing the lowest common denominator.
I think it's sad.. It saddens me to see so many people choose this path.
It can't be healthy, and according to statistics.. It isn't.
It really is little wonder they suffer so horribly.
"See my first comment re Jhoffa."
Already noted and dismissed..
kthx.
That's just sad, Jhoffa. Who are you trying to convince? You really seem to like discussing gay sexual activity. It's OK. I won't judge. And neither should anyone else.
"Men are the greatest creatures the universe has to boast." Good for you! Get in touch with those feelings. It's OK. Really it is.
"Already noted and dismissed."
Already proven.
"Already proven."
LOL!
Jhoffa_
Poll: 100 % of Jhoffa_'s mind is totally made up.
Don't confuse him with facts
Will you please just stop it!
Ya know, if ya'll would just stop trying to jam your sexuality down everyone's throat.. (yes, it was intentional) we would all get along much better.
What is it about faggotdom that causes you people to lose it in this manner, I haven't a clue..
It is sad.. I feel sorry for you.
This is the worst, lowest way to self identify. It robs man of his majesty and intelect, and reduces him to nothing but a rutting animal.
Just sad..
Get help.. Shit.
Jhoffa,
Look, I never said I was gay. You were acting, and continue to act, like a homophobe. Read the thread again. You were the only one who engaged in descriptions of sexual activity. Nobody here has described sex except for you. You are the only one who has "lost it". What is it about homophobes that you concentrate so much on the mechanics of gay sex? But, then, we already know, don't we? You need some introspection, dude. Seriously. And tone down the erotica, will ya? It's robbing you of your majesty.
Spoken like a self important, teenage brat.
I will leave you geniuses to play with your stereotypes and broad brushes. After all, this IS the Raw Story comments section.
Keep on keepin on, buddy!
Perhaps one day our friend Jhoffa will realize that he and other homophobes are the ones associating the GLBT community with physical acts instead of seeing particular human beings as more than what he is obviously concentrating on. That is the whole point of equal rights after all, but he won't let them be more in his eyes.
"he and other homophobes are the ones associating the GLBT community with physical acts instead of.."
No, no.. It is all about the act.
For gays, everything is about the act. That's what they're defending and it is how they self define. They choose to define themselves and their existence by virtue of a perverse sexual act.
You are mistaken.. again.
This happens frequently. I suggest you work on that.
Describing the act itself, the very terms by which these folks define themselves, disgusts normal people. They find it repulsive and a loss of sympathy results.
You obviously don't like this.. it doesn't serve your particular ends. So you criticize it endlessly..
Much in the same manner that pointing out that the "democratic" label has nothing to do with the democrat party also paints you and yours in a less than favorable light.
So you oppose that also..
This is unsurprising.
hoffa, hoffa, hoffa. I thought you were leaving? You need to look beyond your obsession with gay sex and find out what the GLBT community is really fighting for. Gay marriage is about legal rights and recognition, not sex. Is a heterosexual marriage license about sexual activity? No, it is not. Homosexuality concerns who someone is attracted to, not what they do with their bodies. You are the one concentrating on that. Not all heterosexual people share similar physical behavior, either. Some heterosexual people refuse to participate in certain sexual activity or prefer other activity. It doesn't change who they are attracted to. You need to separate the physical act from who the person is attracted to. But for you, obviously, it is only about the sex. You really need to examine your own thinking here.
jhoffa: It is a FACT that the Bush administration started spying on Americans BEFORE 9/11 (look it up, Bub). SO...then why didn't it STOP 9/11??? Bush's "reason" for domestic spying was to "prevent terror attacks", so he said (LIED).
Well, now that I look back up the comments, I see jhoffa wasn't too thrilled with Bush, either.
It is how YOU define them. Have you ever even talked to a gay person? It sure doesn't seem like it. Apparently you think a gay person cannot have a conversation without describing sexual acts. That would be you, Jhoffa.
I have no "particular ends" other than showing you what an obviously blind homophobe you are. You just cannot step back and learn apparently.
I'm not defending the democratic party. I note that you, however, are a child who doesn't realize the difference between a title and a description. Should we change the name of this country because we really aren't that "united"? Grow up.
@disappointed voter #12
Strangely, I agree. There would be little need for more than one party if there were no corporate contributions and election fraud. Maybe part of the reason we still have two is that BOTH are involved in the above.
@Big Dan, dennycrane, etc.,
All of the wrongs done by the Republican party don't prove the Democrats to be the altruistic crowd you'd like everyone to think they are. That kind of thinking is just going to lead to you losing big again later on. Probably by just as much as Republican partisans feel they have lost today.
Whichever party cleans ITSELF up the soonest is probably looking at an unprecedented term in power in the future.
Feeling confident?
The Republican party really is the party of stupid.
They are anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-reality.
If they could get away with it, they'd alter the Constitution to have it state that the world was created in 4004 BC.
Tell you what J. After you go ask a member of the GLBT community how they define themselves and their hopes and dreams, then you can come back and we can have a decent conversation about the matter. Until then, you are just hopeless.
"Tell you what J. After you go ask a member of the GLBT community"
You just said it all..
The GBLT "community" self defines as gay, lesbian or halfie.
It's about sex with these people. It is so by definition.
Their definition.
Patience
Don't add my name to any party that has to raise $10,000 everyday their feet hit the floor to run for senate. ANYTHING is better than "fishy-pants" and "where's mycane."
When these people came up with animals to represent their party, what the hell is up with a "jack-ass" and a fucking "elephant." And the christers ought to be up in arms why the "elephant" party has the stars upside down, AS IN PENTAGRAM. Shit, there are better names for sports teams.
OK, continue with this shit storm
Jhoffa_
There is "NO" democrat party. It is the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. You fuckers like to "add" that little "rat" on the end to make a point. It's like saying- "Hey,Jhoffa_, can I just call you "Fuckhead?"
"You just said it all.. " Excellent. I was wondering if you would hit that softball I threw you. Good for you!
Just like racists are unable to look past the color of someone's skin, you concentrate only on sexual acts. Just as an African American is much more than the color of his or her skin, members of the GLBT community are more than sexual acts. But like racists and other homophobes, you limit people to just a certain associated quality and can see nothing else.
"It's about sex with these people" Do you need pictures to understand things? Other than the ones in your fantasies, of course. Should we get a tutor for you? It is about who they are attracted to and who they love. Physical acts are part of YOUR definition. It is something you obviously cannot get beyond. Talk about obsession, Jesus. Do you honestly think that there aren't celibate homosexuals as well as celibate heterosexuals? That there aren't gay people who won't perform certain sexual acts because they are uncomfortable with them, just like some heterosexuals? You are really freaking obsessed with gay sexual acts.
It's too bad you are incapable of comprehending simple definitions. Or titles. So should I define you by how and how often you pleasure yourself? Or are you something more? At this point it is difficult to tell.
And weren't you leaving? We could just agree to disagree on the level of idiot you are if you want.
Me no believe dis stuf. Dey mus lik rite wing nut lik me do.
What a delusional lot of self-aggrandizing rubbish most of these posts are. Entertaining, though.
It's funny watching commenter-X tell commenter-Y that his party is going to lose the next election... and commenter-Y spewing a retort...
We're all just pissing in the wind, aren't we?
Fact is... if the next party "in power" (which really should be "serving the public" rather than "in power") begins with a "D" or and "R" - The chances are WE are ALL going to continue being fucking losers of epic proportions.
BOTH of these unbelievably shitty parties sold out a long time ago and are corrupted beyond repair... I'm not stating it lightly, look at both parties and you'll see plenty of corruption - and that's only the corruption they weren't clever enough to cover up properly. What we don't see (and what I've learned from personal experience of working with different local governments) is that corruption is RAMPANT from the roots all the way up.
And what "change" is there now?
Almost everything about Obama's actions (rather than words) indicate that he is Bush v2.0. An articulate, charismatic, well-marketed re-incarnation of the Bankster's puppet, this time without a documented family history of coup-planning, stealing $Millions in a white-collar bank robbery, financially supporting Hitler or being friends with the Bin Laden family... - a significant enough cosmetic difference and family-history difference that buying the "change" marketing slogan was going to be enough to pull votes away from candidates who's long-term policies and stance on issues indicated a genuine desire for fomenting change and much needed reform.
America was duped again and will be again if something isn't done NOW.
2012 might seem a long way off... but it isn't... and trying to start an independent or alternative campaign/party in 2011 just isn't giving it enough time to forge support... America needs to start thinking of 2012 NOW because we already fucked this one up... just like the Bankster's wanted us to... we carried on playing along in their 2 party charade.
America is corporately owned... they pay off the judges, they print the money, they own an overwhelming majority of mainstream media, they own both parties, they make their own laws through the power of corporate funds and lobbyists, they get trillions of dollars of OUR money and still continue to pay themselves bonuses even though things got so bad they needed "bailing out".
Voting D or R is for idiots, it's throwing more money at the people who have enough money to influence these corrupted, worthless parties... but we live in fear that if we don't vote for D or R it will give power to the party we dislike most.
The fear of the "worst" party makes us vote for a bad party... and that's fucked up.
[...] Finding a Republican or Conservative scientist is a very difficult thing to do. Story is here [...]
Good God!...you guys / ladies (or Libs and Libets) will put a spin on anything. Anyone in the sciences knows that a study is just that...only a study. But does not mean it is statistically significant and from a good source. Also, anyone who has ever taken a statistics course, knows that many studies out there are not scientifically sound. It amazes me that so many of you Libs claim to be so educated ("more so than conservatives"…Ahhh, Ok...yeah right), yet you read a "study" and believe whatever it says because it is something YOU WANT to believe. Wow!!!!.....shaking my head in disbelief...
Oh...and please tell me, what was the P Value again in the study and what source did they gather their population??? Also, I forgot to ask, what type of statistical study was used to calculate that outcome??? T-test, Chi Square test, etc.???
I am just a "non-edumacated" conservative anyway, so what do I know...
But thanks for the great laugh!...Not from the story, but from your replies! LOL!!!
One doesn't need a study to know this, it is common sense. Liberals and Progressive may cater to the poor but they don't cater to the stupid. Anyone who follows politics knows the republicans and social conservatives depend on the ignorance of people so their memes and sound bites will be effective. This is why only 26 percent of the population claim to be republicans, they depend in the lower side of the Bell Curve in IQ capacity to gain what their corporate interest want.
AB in the hizzouse! Life of the party!
Ab - Does that impress the ladies? "Well, you see...T-test, Chi Square test...Hey, come back! I'm smart damn it! Smart!! SMMAAARRT!!!!"
What happend to Jhoffa_the Hutt?
He's wanted in central casting. Lucas films is doing a blockbuster about an alien planet that feels like home to republicans.
Oh Jhoffa, come out, come out, where ever you are.
"But does not mean it is statistically significant and from a good source. Also, anyone who has ever taken a statistics course, knows that many studies out there are not scientifically sound."
Anyone who knows anything about statistics and significance testing can readily surmise that if you take a poll and only 6% of a population comes out on one side of an issue, like being a scientist, this almost certainly can't have happened by chance. Either, a very biased sample was sampled originally to arrive at the 6% or there is a very real phenomenon that requires an explanation. The fact that the sample was derived from AAAS members, suggests that the latter hypothesis is likely true and some kind of explanation is called for.
All those pesky liberals appear to have a point.
"So, that kinda excludes them from the GOP, which is a rule-based organization."
And as John Ensign said, "Rules are made to be broken".
Just because they don't believe in Darwinism doesn't mean Republican dinosaurs can exist with humanity.
This study reminds us of a prior study suggesting that education seems to make students more liberal in their political disposition. Perhaps this is one of the reasons school budgets are trashed whereas even 19th C Republicans supported education budgets and properly regarded it as a social obligation. Look at any school building more than 50 years old. It maybe shabby but still well built. No more.
Im not surprised. Most scientists do not believe in Christianity either. It would stand to reason we would be "liberal" also. I have a multiple science degree'ed background and have worked in the Science/Engineeering fields for 30 years (alternative energy, environemental) and essentiallly most every one of my collegues is along those similar lines (atheist-agnostic, liberal). Of course it's not an absolute. There is ALWAYS someone out there to be on the "fringe" of the "bell curve".
I'm proud to be a liberal, atheist, GAY scientist.
(Oh, and, 'Luke Skywalker', I recognized that Jhoffa freak who was for Proposition 8 anti gay-marriage amendment here in Calif. I nicklnamed 'him' "jackhoffa." as he always had some anti-gay perverted fantasy thing going in his kinky rants. Looks like it still does!)
[...] Poll: Just Six Percent of Scientists are Republicans – Now, why would that be? Scientists deal with facts; Republicans deal with … Oh, never mind. [...]
Lots of speculation about psychology and ideology in these comments, but it would be interesting to see a comparison of these numbers to a similar study from before the GWB years. Is it really a matter of certain ideologies being anti-empirical and dogmatic, or is it largely an artifact of bad science policy from the last administration? (It's also remarkable just how many scientists describe themselves as independent - not to downplay the 52-6 disparity between parties!) More generally, there are a lot of historical contingencies that go into the makeup of a political party in a two-party state, and parsing those out is more apt to be informative on this issue than sweeping statements about openness to new experience, revising one's views or whatever. There's no inherent reason why a conservative political philosophy has to be wed to, say, fundamentalist Christian views about science and religion, just like there's no inherent reason a generally liberal political philosophy has to be wed to, say, the abortion rights lobby. And there's nothing about a preference for a stronger welfare state as opposed to a more dynamic economy, say, that makes one more open to the revision of one's views.
Dear Jackoffa.
"Heterosexual" = "Different sex".
"Homosexual" = Same sex.
"Straight." "Gay."
WHO is identifying WHOM by their sexuality?
Now, go climb back into your HOLE where you belong (And I don't mean your ANUS though that could work too!) BTW Independent Thought is party independent. Scientists tend to be that way.
Ya crazy twit.
[...] It is more difficult to plausibly charge discrimination in light of this recent study, via Leiter Reports: A new Pew study finds that just 6% of scientists are Republicans. [...]