Who Knew? Tea Partiers Know Science
Yale professor Dan Kahan made an interesting discovery while conducting some statistical comparisons of science comprehension across education, religion, and ideology. What he found might surprise you.
Using a scale intended to measure ones' substantive scientific knowledge and critical reasoning skills, he found liberals/Democrats scored significantly higher than conservatives/Republicans on the science comprehensive scale. However, tea party supporters (19% of his sample) were statistically more likely than non-tea partiers to also score higher on the science comprehension scale. While the statistically significant difference is not likely substantive, it demonstrates that tea partiers on average are different than conservative Republicans.
Kahan also found that those who graduated from college scored statistically higher on the index of science comprehension. Less religious people were also slightly more likely to score higher on the index, although perhaps not substantively so.
Reflecting on this surprising tea party finding, Kahan writes:
"I've got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected I'd be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the Tea Party and science comprehension.
But then again, I don't know a single person who identifies with the Tea Party. All my impressions come from watching cable tv -- & I don't watch Fox News very often -- and reading the "paper" (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused internet sites like Huffington Post & Politico)."
Here are the charts:
Source: Dan Kahan, The Cultural Cognition Project, Yale Law School
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The Republican Party has Rino-Virus. The Tea Party pledges to eradicate this fatal, debilitating illness next election.
Great idea, lets get rid of all those moderate RINO's, and even the "center-right" Republicans! Being a Center Right Republican is basically the same as a Moderate Republican. Which is the same as being a Liberal which is basically a Progressive which is the same as a Socialist. And we all know Socialists are Communists.
" he found liberals/Democrats scored significantly higher than conservatives/Republicans on the science comprehensive scale."
Based simply on this, I call bullish*t. My experience of liberals and Democrats is that they are basically innumerate, incapable of understanding cause and effect (as in "if you make banks lend money to people who can't pay it back, there will be a crash), and passionately devoted to pseudo-science such as the Global Warming hysteria, the anti-GM hysteria, and so forth.
I'd be curious to know what questions they asked exactly.
First if p = .05 then this finding (a difference between Tea-Party identifiers and non-TP identifiers) is NOT statistically significant by most standards. Now that is REALLY close to being significant.
Significance is overrated though. The more important measure is effect size, in this case r. An r (Pearson's Correlation) of .05 is RAZOR thin and I can't imagine many psychometric researches accepting such a small effect size (it only explains 2.5% of variance). This would be, by any standard I'm aware of, considered a non-existent relationship.
There are also some questions regarding the validity of the scale used, but that is a whole different issue.
This is typical liberal edu BS. Anyone who has taken a course in Statistics knows that a poll or survey can produce any outcome the designer wants depending on what questions are posed, how they are posed and what group is surveyed.
"All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, the Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. The Earth is less than 9000 years old and was created in six literal days."
- Rep. Paul Broun (R), House Committee on Science, Space and Technology