Sciencesciencedeniertinfoilconspiracynuts


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 9, 2015, 05:47 PM

3. I recommend you read this article from beginning to end and then reconsider your post.

An excerpt:
...The data were gathered from a large U.S. study of how people perceive the risk of vaccination. And when Kahan crunched the numbers, they revealed a small correlation between science comprehension and political leaning. One finding: Those who identified themselves as “liberal” tended to have greater scientific comprehension than those who self-identified as “conservative.”

Or, as Kahan put it: “The sign of the correlation indicates that science comprehension decreases as political outlooks move in the rightward direction--i.e., the more ‘liberal’ and ‘Democrat,’ the more science comprehending.” Statistically, the effect was small—a correlation coefficient of r = 0.05—and only weakly significant, with a probability of p = 0.03. That is just under the traditionally accepted threshold of p = 0.05 that researchers use to identify a correlation that is unlikely enough to be the result of chance alone.

Many studies of people’s ideological leanings and ability to parse scientific information have found similar correlations. It has added up to the widespread perception that politically conservative beliefs go hand in hand with poor scientific understanding.

But Kahan cautions that this interpretation, known as the asymmetric hypothesis, is itself an example of the misinterpretation of scientific information. And he argues that the available data instead supports the symmetric hypothesis, which holds that such biases apply equally to liberal-leaning people.

To push back against the tide of misunderstanding and dampen the polarization, in his blog post, Kahan pointed out that survey participants who self-identified with the libertarian-leaning Tea Party movement also showed a slightly higher affinity for understanding scientific concepts. Again, the effect was tiny (r = 0.05) and even less significant (p = 0.05).

“he relationship is trivially small, and can't possibly be contributing in any way to the ferocious conflicts over decision-relevant science that we are experiencing,” Kahan wrote. But he hoped that pointing out the Tea Party factoid would dampen the political polarization, perhaps giving readers pause before making generalizations....http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2013/10/statistical-fluke-researchers-observations-tea-party-and-science-spark

Professor Kahan wasn't saying anything like what you thought he was saying, due to the misleading reporting by the RW source you cite. GIGO.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 39 replies Author Time Post
EGTrise Jul 2015 OP
nolidad Jul 2015 #1
Gunslinger201 Jul 2015 #2
LineLineReply I recommend you read this article from beginning to end and then reconsider your post.
EGTrise Jul 2015 #3
MeatSandwich Jul 2015 #14
EGTrise Jul 2015 #15
MeatSandwich Jul 2015 #16
EGTrise Jul 2015 #17
MeatSandwich Jul 2015 #22
EGTrise Jul 2015 #25
MeatSandwich Jul 2015 #27
rahtruelies Jul 2015 #4
marmot84 Jul 2015 #7
rahtruelies Jul 2015 #26
marmot84 Jul 2015 #31
rahtruelies Jul 2015 #33
marmot84 Jul 2015 #34
nolidad Jul 2015 #5
EGTrise Jul 2015 #6
nolidad Jul 2015 #11
EGTrise Jul 2015 #13
Paradigm Jul 2015 #8
EGTrise Jul 2015 #9
Paradigm Jul 2015 #10
MountainDew Jul 2015 #12
Letmypeoplevote Jul 2015 #20
MountainDew Jul 2015 #28
AZ0 Jul 2015 #18
EGTrise Jul 2015 #21
AZ0 Jul 2015 #23
EGTrise Jul 2015 #24
AZ0 Jul 2015 #30
Letmypeoplevote Jul 2015 #19
NotWhoUThink Jul 2015 #29
EGTrise Jul 2015 #32
Transcendence Jul 2015 #35
EGTrise Jul 2015 #36
Transcendence Jul 2015 #37
EGTrise Jul 2015 #38
Transcendence Jul 2015 #39
Please login to view edit histories.

Sciencesciencedeniertinfoilconspiracynuts