The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: BlueStateSaint on October 17, 2013, 02:40:31 PM
-
Found this on Drudge. Note what the last paragraph quoted says . . .
Eureka! Tea partiers know science
By TAL KOPAN | 10/17/13 1:53 PM EDT
A finding in a study on the relationship between science literacy and political ideology surprised the Yale professor behind it: Tea party members know more science than non-tea partiers.
Yale law professor Dan Kahan posted on his blog this week that he analyzed the responses of a set of more than 2,000 American adults recruited for another study and found that, on average, people who leaned liberal were more science literate than those who leaned conservative.
However, those who identified as part of the tea party movement were actually better versed in science than those who didn’t, Kahan found. The findings met the conventional threshold of statistical significance, the professor said.
Kahan wrote that not only did the findings surprise him, they embarrassed him.
Embarrassed him? What a close-minded inDUHvidual . . .
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/tea-party-science-98488.html#ixzz2i0gFUNfS
-
I thought we hated science. I thought we were flat earthers.
-
Why would he be embarrassed?
I would like to think he felt embarrassed because he went into the study trying to prove something he thought was true and found out that it wasn't.
But he's a law professor, so little chance of that.
-
Why would he be embarrassed?
I would like to think he felt embarrassed because he went into the study trying to prove something he thought was true and found out that it wasn't.
But he's a law professor, so little chance of that.
What does a lawyer know about truth, justice and the American way?
-
What does a lawyer know about truth, justice and the American way?
About as much as Congress.
Oh wait.....
-
Why would he be embarrassed?
I would like to think he felt embarrassed because he went into the study trying to prove something he thought was true and found out that it wasn't.
But he's a law professor, so little chance of that.
No doubt because his experimental thesis was that TEA Partiers were unlettered rubes, and Liberals represented a bastion of sound scientific thought.
-
This was also posted at Politico. I think the prof was embarrassed because he had a unfounded, pre-conceived notion. Said he's never known a teapartier in his life. I thought that this was refreshing and intellectually honest, publishing his findings. We all know a DUmmie would sweep it under the rug.
-
I gotta give it up to this prof. He followed the scientific procedure properly and, when the data didn't fit his hypothesis, he did what good investigators are supposed to: he published the actual findings. He didn't change the data, didn't make up hockey sticks, didn't blame talk radio or bloggers.
How sad is it that we are impressed when a college professor is honest?
-
I gotta give it up to this prof. He followed the scientific procedure properly and, when the data didn't fit his hypothesis, he did what good investigators are supposed to: he published the actual findings. He didn't change the data, didn't make up hockey sticks, didn't blame talk radio or bloggers.
How sad is it that we are impressed when a college professor is honest?
That's true. But it's also sad that a college professor went into it with a preconceived idea about a group of people he knew nothing about.
Apparently he made professorship without first learning to "not assume" until you have all the facts.
-
But it's also sad that a college professor went into it with a preconceived idea about a group of people he knew nothing about.
To be honest, while I understand where you're coming from, I'm willing to give him a pass on this one. After all, we all bring our own prejudices with us wherever we go and he, at least, was willing to challenge them. Remember when Larry Summers wondered if women weren't represented in sciences because of different aptitudes? The cries of "sexism" and "misogyny" could be heard for miles away, the subject was dropped, and the offender (Summers) was suitably punished for challenging orthodoxy. That's the unfortunate norm.
If we had more in higher education who were willing to acknowledge their bias and be open to experimentation I think the college system would be much better off.