§7.1

a blog by josef johann

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Bigotry at Redstate

So I have, in fact, been banned from Redstate for this post (a link I can no longer access from home) about the Pew poll showing a minuscule 6% of scientists identifying as Republicans (12% with leaners). Moe Lane, an administrator, replaced most of my post with a youtube video and replaced my headline, "What's up with the Pew Poll? 12% of Scientists identify as Republican" with a generic "What's up with Democrat Spending?" This is what I originally wrote- just some numbers pulled from the Pew poll and a few very reasonable questions asking what they think about it.

Since I was banned, I'd like to respond here to some of the commenters I got over at Redstate who tried to question the legitimacy of the poll, (and also, I'd like to respond to Moe and his banning "rationale").

Aesthete says:
...I don't see your point
Are you trying to prove that the Bush administration suppressed scientific research? If so, you’re going to need to provide a substantially greater amount of proof than polls.

Are you trying to spread the idea of conservatives as being anti-academic, or anti-science? In which case, wouldn’t the results on voter beliefs on science contradict that claim?

As to the “conservatives in the mist” segment of your diary, I don’t overly concern myself with group polling. I don’t think that the fact that blacks vote Democrat, that the military votes Republican, or that (not Native American) Indians vote Republican automatically lead to the conclusion that Dems are anti-military or anti-Indian, or that Republicans are anti-scientist or racist. In reality, there are several plausible explanations for the results indicated in the polls (assuming that the methodology is sound). As such, such data is only useful as an interesting anecdote, and not in my preferences for policy. Neoclassical monetarist economic policies encourage the development of a strong economy with high potential for growth, and that includes science and technology-related investment.

Also, aggregating all scientific fields to prove your “point” is an amateur move, as the “soft sciences” are much more partisan than harder sciences, esp. Engineering, Physics, and the like.


This last point is absolutely false. The scientists are broken into four groups: Biological and Medical (1,255), Chemistry (348), Geosciences (154), Physics and Astronomy (229). So much for the "amateur move." As for the questions- no, I don't think polling constitutes proof that the Bush Admin. suppressed evidence, I think the fact that the Bush Admin suppressed evidence constitutes proof that they suppressed evidence. And yes, I am trying to "spread" the idea of a disjunction between conservative thought and mainstream scientific thought, since it's supported by polling and ought to be discussed by people who don't seem to want to believe it's true.

Uma Ritcie says:
In most science-related articles
the author concludes with calls for “more government funding” to continue exploration of the topic. I assume that if you spend hours and hours on grant proposals when you’d much rather be in the lab doing research, you’re not going to identify with us tightwad Republicans.


I originally mistook this comment for a claim that this study ends by calling for more funding, and struggled in vain to find the part of the report where this occurs. It was, however an attempt to dismiss the report based on a lazy generalization, that's not even appropriate in this case because Pew doesn't take money from the government.

civil_truth says:
It's been quite a while since I've seen a true-blue "conservatives in the mist" diary
So let’s get down to nuts and bolts - when the Obama adminstration suppresses dissenting views on global warming climate change, is that a bad thing (as when the Bush administration allegedly did that) or is that just a necessary silencing and suppression of heretics who dare to challenge a new scientific orthodoxy?

Your answer to that question will establish whether you believe in the old fashioned scientific method as a path to determining objective truth, or whether you agree with the predominant doctine today that science is simply a tool to leverage a post-modern political agenda that rejects objective scientific truth.


I hadn't heard of "conservatives in the mist" before. It apparently comes from a Jonah Goldberg article about the condescending practice of treating conservatives as poor, clueless creatures who don't know better; the quiet background premise being that this is not a legitimate observation. Goldberg's article is now meme-ified, which provides a handy defense mechanism should anyone suggest a divergence between conservative thought and mainstream thought in any context.

As for the question- I would agree provided the report in question were actually "suppressed" rather than unsolicited. So, I'm glad (I guess?) to have proven my commitment to objective scientific truth.

JadedByPolitics says:
Your question on the military and overwhelming support for R's...
is indeed PROOF that the Dem’s are out of touch with the military and have been since Vietnam. The Military likes to get the job done without interference from the Congress and yet while they were no longer militarily engaged in Vietnam they watched as the Democrat Congress pulled the funding ensuring that people that helped them in anyway were slaughtered by the millions. The military in more recent times watched as those who were at war with us were treated by Dem’s as a police action instead of the war it was ie: 92 Twin Towers, Somalia, and well you know the rest.

So in conclusion I am saying that yes the military MISTRUSTS D’s as they should and with regards to Science the fact that Scientist’s consistantly want Government Spending which I believe makes their conclusions biased would not make a GREAT fit for Republicans.


JadedByPolitics appears to agree with the premise that polling a community for their approval of the political parties is a legitimate measure, or "PROOF," of whether those parties are "out of touch" with said community. Which apparently means they think Republicans are in some meaningful way "out of touch" with mainstream science.

Vegas_Rick says:
You've obviously already made up your mind
So why do you waste our time and bandwidth?

You’ve never spent a day in the military yet you talk of the indoctination of military recruits. Where’s your evidence?

Get lost moby.


("Moby" is a term they use at Redstate for liberals who come to Redstate and pretend they are conservative.) I base it on my experiences with one close friend and three or four casual friends who have each joined different branches, as well as my own personal thought that soldiers need to believe the war they are risking their lives for is a war worth fighting and Republicans tend to always have reasons why wars are worth fighting.

Finrod says:

I'd wonder about the internals of that poll
12 percent of scientists identified as Republican? What was the total number of Democrats and Republicans polled? I’m guessing that this poll way oversampled Democrats and way undersampled Republicans; whether intentionally or due to bad polling techniques it’s impossible to tell.


The total number of scientists polled was 2,533. I understand the notion of separating out Republicans, Democrats and independents in a poll, asking them questions, and then weight-adjusting their answers to compensate for over/under sampling and show the public's perspective on a given question. But I'm not sure where the idea comes from that you can weight-adjust the party affiliation numbers when the purpose of the question was to determine party affiliation.

Finally, site administrator Moe Lane says:
He's not returning anyway.
This is a partisan political site, not a therapy session for Democrats and liberals desperate to convince themselves that they aren’t bad people, really.


He certainly has me figured out. I ask them to account for the reported gulf between mainstream science and their Republican party because I feel guilty about Republicans who support policies injurious to the country because of their scientific illiteracy. Well, Moe, as long as you agree that every accusation you ever make of "bias" and "partisanship" is by your own admission hypocritical partisan garbage, that's fair enough. But even a partisan site secure in its message stands to benefit from a little introspection and self criticism.

14 comments:

hitesh said...

They banned me very quickly as well. If you say anything reasonable that disagrees with them, they not only ban you but they replace your post, sometimes with something making fun of you.

Its fine, they can do what they want. The democratic sites like Reddit & Digg will continue to offer a civilized place for political discourse. These people are not to be taken seriously.

Anonymous said...

Also banned. All these right wing sites disallow any dissenting opinions to keep the illusion they are never wrong.

Anonymous said...

Don't you understand. They aren't willing to listen. Numerous studies and articles have been published showing how self-described "conservatives" aren't open to debate on topics and ignore evidence counter to their formed opinions. The phrase "talking to a brick wall" comes to mind. You could have ten polls and they still wouldn't understand.

Anonymous said...

Wow! I am just shocked how backward American politics is.

Bryan said...

Third anon post from the top, do you have any links to support? I'm not trying to call you out, I would just like to read the articles/studies on the subject. Thanks.

Tincanman said...

Sadly, you can't use logic, reason and facts with people who refused to use logic, reason and facts to form their opinions in the first place.

Garet said...

I wouldn't quite call sites like Digg and Reddit always "civilized," but they're certainly less infuriating.

Anonymous said...

I am a member of RedState -- I go by the moniker, ZootSuit -- and if what you wrote here (http://josefjohann.blogspot.com/2009/07/venturing-into-redstate.html) is what you actually posted at RedState, then please allow me to respond. You makes several errors in your logic and underlying assumptions that I will attempt to address.

Your error -- actually the first of multiple errors -- is that you first fail to understand that military "membership" and scientific community "membership" are both self-selected. It is not that once one is introduced into these "communities" or "memberships" that one is indoctrinated into the political tendencies inherent with those groups; it is that one is more likely to go into those professions and become members of the respective "communities" precisely because of the prior political leanings one has. For example, polls (to use the your "evidence" and methodology) consistently show that soldiers are far more likely to come from Republican or self-identified conservative homes and communities than the general population. Again, while I do not doubt that political preferences are reinforced within those communities simply because one is surrounded by like-minded individuals (scientific or military, both), the primary fact remains that potential soldiers enter the military as more Republican: just as potential scientist enter professions of science such as academia as more Democratic.

Second, as Uma Richie touches upon (and as you avoid, either consciously or unconsciously) much of the scientific community is at least partially government-funded. Thus, they have an interest in aligning themselves with the political party or philosophy that is seen as spending the most on their endeavors (just as, in fairness, the military has an interest in aligning themselves with the political party or philosophy that is seen as spending the most on their endeavors). That, in and of itself does not make their behavior and preferences more right or wrong -- nor does it make scientific endeavors more right or wrong than military endeavors -- it is simply a statement of fact and human nature.


Indeed, much of the sciemtific community is simply academia: which is run like a socialist paradise (and I write this as the husband of a wife, also conservative, who is a professor [not a lecturer or some such] at a major university). Not only is academic research very often conducted without regard to the profit motive or how the results of the research can be put to practical, common good (which is itself the basis of the profit motive), but it is more often considered a good thing and even a fundamental right that research should be conducted without regard to the profit motive. Is it any wonder that scientist as a whole are more liberal and Democratic than the general population?


And that brings up a final error by you: your apparent if unspoken assumption that scientist and/or the scientific community have greater wisdom or political insight than the general population. The fact that more scientist are liberals and Democrats than the general population is no more an endorsement of liberalism than the fact that more soldiers or businesspersons are conservatives and Republicans than the general population is an endorsement of conservatism. Although, make no mistake, I agree and support the latter far more. It is simply the result of a self-selected grouping, nothing more.

r2streu said...

I would agree with ZootSuit, above, and add the following: Republicans don't reject science. We just expect researchers to be accountable. Global Warming -- er... Climate Change (or whatever they're calling it now) is a good example. Scientists have no idea why the earth suddenly warmed several million years ago -- but they're sure it has -- but they claim that, based upon a model (which has been wrong in predicting actual weather changes almost every time), they can say climat change is now being caused by humans. Further, though they haven't rescinded the "warming" meme so much as abandoned it, the scientific community forming the "consensus" we're all supposed to fall in line for failed to "predict" the cooling stage that we've BEEN IN THE MIDDLE OF for the last several years. They just completely failed to notice. And when it was pointed out, simply changed their rhetoric.

So, yeah. In general, many Conservatives are skeptical. but that's because somebody has to hold people accountable for what they say. God knows the Democrats aren't doing it.

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with other Redstate posters. We are not adverse to science so much as a lot of us are old enough to remember the SCARE tactics of these "earthers" in the 70's when we were told we would FREEZE to death that oil would be gone by the 80's and the planet would be dead by the 21st century from over-population. I cannot tell you how sick I am of seeing the same African on the front of Time or Newsweek with the fly at their eye and the blame being placed on America instead of recognizing that with all the money in the world thrown your way if you have thieves and parasites running your country those beneath them will die in mass.

If science were allowed to be just science without all of the "could be" "may be" "might be" being used as justification for those scientist who say the debate is OVER then I personally would have more respect for it. I despise theories and I despise being told the debate is over when the reality if one is being honest is that nothing is ever settled science because new things are being found all the time that changes the thinking of scientist.

So I think what we have here is a failure to communicate as thinking humans who disagree on the way it is being offered to society as a whole. I believe being Conservative dictates that one investigate further on their own without being subject to the Government deciding for you. I personally find science to be fascinating what I don't like is money that twists and turns the results to favor an outcome for the organization funding the science.

Global Warming and the hustlers who are shoving it on the American populace ie: Gore, Pickens, GE and the original arbiter of carbon trading Enron will make them all billionaires while we the American public are scammed out of our tax dollars for their benefit. Think about that and check into the fact that this scheme is being run by some very rich people who will be MUCH richer when it passes.

JadedByPolitics

josef said...

Well, I'm glad the Redstaters found me (how?).

Response to ZootSuit:

... you first fail to understand that military "membership" and scientific community "membership" are both self-selected. It is not that once one is introduced into these "communities" or "memberships" that one is indoctrinated into the political tendencies inherent with those groups; it is that one is more likely to go into those professions and become members of the respective "communities" precisely because of the prior political leanings one has.

It's neat how I can go through life, think critically about any number of issues and inevitably apply such generic concepts as "self selection" uncountably many times in a variety of contexts, only to have an internet commenter confidently tell me that it's something I fail to understand. I'm sure you've had this happen to you, and I'll guess you didn't think much of the argument the assumption was attached to. Anyway, it's false, as my original passage should make clear:

Is that supposed to prove that Democrats are "out of step" with the military? I would say no- there is rather a cultural identification with the military, with war heroes and with war in general that is entrenched in the military, and young [apolitical] recruits tend to get indoctrinated into that culture and keep the tradition alive.

I'll grant you that I didn't use the words "self selected," but I'm not sure how identifying military membership with military culture is construed as anything but a different way of saying the same thing- at the least, I'd like to see a good-faith reading of the above that is somehow incompatible with self-selection. I can't see any.

Even in the universe where that would count as an "error," self selection coheres with the point I was originally making: the opinions of armed servicemen on the political parties is not necessarily a comment on the parties themselves if there are actually good reasons for thinking institutional effects explain the opinions.

Thus, they have an interest in aligning themselves with the political party or philosophy that is seen as spending the most on their endeavors [...] it is simply a statement of fact and human nature.

That's a drastic oversimplification, and it leaves you empty-handed when explaining differences between scientists and public on a whole host of issues that don't correspond to expected partisan breakdowns, such as:

- using animals for research (93% of scientists support, 52% of the public supports)
- nuclear power (70% of scientists support, 51% of public supports)
- childhood vaccinations (82% of scientists support, 69% of public supports).

Those disjunctions don't make any more sense when you throw around the idea of "liberal academia," which means there must be some other factor by which scientists are differentiated from the public (and hence republicans) at large.

Also, as institutions, the AAAS and military aren't different from the public in the same ways, so it makes little sense to equate them. The military is 89.6% male, for example. And in the poll, the 77% of scientists agreeing that the Bush Administration were suppressing politically inconvenient evidence were commenting on an issue immediately relevant to their field of expertise. If anyone in the military made a similar claim, you bet I would listen and take it very seriously, and I would trust the military far more than the public at large.

josef said...

forgot the link to the military factoid

Anonymous said...

Response to Josef:

You are simply repeated your same assumptions without evidence. To be brief

I will accept your claim that you were admitting to self-selection with regards to military personnel -- although you still seem to be arguing that (quoting you) "young [apolitical] recruits tend to get indoctrinated into that culture" instead of acknowledging that they largely self-select themselves due to their previous political preferences -- but you seem curiously unable to acknowledge that the same bias is exhibited by scientists. Just as there is a "cultural identification" with the military, there is also a cultural identification with the scientific community which you seem unable to fully accept. That is a flaw in your argument that you have not addressed.

As for the differences in opinion between scientists and the public on non-political issues, that is irrelevant. The questions you originally raised were specifically about political issues, were they not?

There are a host of other, non-political issues about which we can "slice and dice" (okay, cross-tabulate and correlate) any profession, education level and/or just about any other human classification about which we would find often significant differences of opinions and preferences. Are you now expanding your assertions to argue about non-political preferences?

And it is interesting that you are now contrasting scientists against the "public" and not just against the military. Perhaps it is scientists who are out of touch and the question to be asked is not why there is such a gulf between scientists and Republicans but rather a gulf between scientists and ... well ... everyone.

Do you take this as a gulf between "mainstream scientists" and the American public? If not, I'd like to know what evidence you would need in order to believe that.

Furthermore, no one disputes that the AAAS and military aren't different from the public in the same ways: almost by definition, no two subsets are different from the general public in the same ways. But you can compare the two, even if you must normalize any variances among them. Indeed, you are the one who initially compares the military with the scientific community, even if it is ultimately to make a contrast between the two groups. A contrast that you are not supporting, by the way.

Specifically as for the military being 89.6% male, in regards to the issue at hand, so what. What evidence do you have that this affects the results of a political preference, or at least affects them in a way that cannot be normalized?

Moreover, even if it was to affect the results, it must be asked in comparison what gender ratio of the AAAS is? Or more specifically, the gender ratio of the scientists in the poll you were referencing was?

My guess is -- good, bad, or indifferent -- the sampling of that poll was also predominantly male.

As for 77% of scientists agreeing that the Bush Administration were suppressing politically inconvenient evidence, that is an important question: even if one ultimately disagrees with 77% of the scientists. I say this even as you acknowledge that it would be serious if the military made a similar claim. To the latter issue -- the military making claims that say, the Obama or Clinton Administration was suppressing politically inconvenient evidence relevant to the military's field of expertise -- I would say that you should get to know military and even ex-military soldiers more. The military, by its very nature, cannot openly criticize its civilian, political leadership. And for the record, I think that is a good thing. However, from personal experience, I would say that perhaps a surprisingly large number of military and ex-military (from a surprisingly disparate background, I may add) have repeatedly expressed severe misgivings and concerns about past and present Democratic Administrations and Congresses in private.

But that is just my personal experience.

Finally, thank you for the link to the "military factoid."

josef said...

1. "young [apolitical] recruits tend to get indoctrinated into that culture" instead of acknowledging that they largely self-select themselves due to their previous political preferences

You are trying to set those up as though they were mutually exclusive phenomena, which they aren't. Kids at the age of 18-24 are often making the sensitive transition from being apolitical to taking a partisan stance on the world, that often hardens into enduring party loyalty. It's not negated by the fact that there are also kids coming from military families, neither is the overarching point.

2. Just as there is a "cultural identification" with the military, there is also a cultural identification with the scientific community which you seem unable to fully accept. That is a flaw in your argument that you have not addressed.

I've addressed this several times. Issues of war & peace are more intrinsically ideological, in a way that bioinformatics or astrophysics or geology is not. Nonetheless, if the members of the military made comments on an issue within their expertise, or said that their particular expertise were the basis for belonging to one party or another, I'd listen.

3. As for the differences in opinion between scientists and the public on non-political issues, that is irrelevant.

This is outright incorrect. Scientists don't transform into different people depending on the question- which means there are other components to their identity besides being "liberal," and it's self-serving to stop your analysis the moment it lets you dismiss opinions you don't like.

At some point you have to be ready to engage with the fact that they are privy to a set of experiences the general public doesn't have, and that to some extent they derive their opinions from a rational reflection on those immediate realities. You don't appear to be.

4. Perhaps it is scientists who are out of touch and the question to be asked is not why there is such a gulf between scientists and Republicans but rather a gulf between scientists and ... well ... everyone.

If that were the case they probably wouldn't self-identify with Democrats over Republicans.

I see you are trying to leverage the question the other way but it only serves to make my point more clear. You would suggest there is no other reason for them to prefer nuclear power, animal testing, and childhood vaccination than that they are drowning helpless under the accidents of institutional and cultural influence. That makes sense in some situations, but that doesn't make sense when they are commenting on a subject immediately relevant to their own expertise.


5. Indeed, you are the one who initially compares the military with the scientific community, even if it is ultimately to make a contrast between the two groups

I absolutely didn't. I was anticipating a counter-argument that I disagreed with.


6. Or more specifically, the gender ratio of the scientists in the poll you were referencing was?

They asked for gender from the public, but didn't appear to ask for gender from the scientists.


7. The military, by its very nature, cannot openly criticize its civilian, political leadership.

That's probably true in a context that has nothing to do with the current subject. They can, and do, offer their opinions on on a variety of deeply political subjects.

8. However, from personal experience, I would say that perhaps a surprisingly large number of military and ex-military (from a surprisingly disparate background, I may add) have repeatedly expressed severe misgivings and concerns about past and present Democratic Administrations and Congresses in private.

But according to you, of course they would say that! It's just a bias and there's no reason to take it seriously, they always say that kind of stuff.

Post a Comment