Poll: Just Six Percent of Scientists are Republican

[Christa]

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.

More:
http://www.newsnshit.com/2009/10/poll-just-six-percent-of-scientists-are.html



there is no god and I am his prophet

[no_hypocrisy]

1. It's the mindset.

Scientists are trained to be skeptical of anything that can't be proven. Faith is not part of their cognitive make-up. Facts, cold hard facts. Physical manifestation. Logic. Chain of reason. Precedent.

Republicans expect their followers to drink the koolaid even if it kills them. Faith without thinking. Antithesis of a scientist.

[stray cat]

3. Common sense and reason - regardless of faith most politicians display neither

nor do political parties - which are largely group think tanks with little of the thinking part

[izquierdista]

6. And experimental outcomes

Liberals will look at outcomes and select the best ones around which to make policy decisions. Conservatives already know which theories work (i.e. supply-side economics, tax cuts, free trade, abstinence-only education), and if there is a poor outcome, it just means that more theory will have to be applied.

[rayofreason]

28. Then how do you explain socialism?

The experiment has been done - Every avowedly socialist state run by a political party that some way or another claims allegiance to Marxist ideas has been a disaster.

1. Such regimes have been the origin of the biggest deliberate democides in history. The Khmer Rouge slaughtered 1/3 of their own population. Stalin created the Ukrainian famine that killed millions. The Great Leap Forward led to the death of tens of millions.

2. Every such regime has presided over economic stagnation and poverty as capitalist societies thrived. Compare the East and West Germany, North and South Korea. No one wants to move to the lands of "socialist abundance", but many want to leave in search of a better life.

3. Every such regime either started off or evolved into an authoritarian, dictatorial state where dissent is a crime.

So the experiment has been done, repeatedly, but "...if there is a poor outcome, it just means that more theory will have to be applied."

Of course for the religious, proof is not an issue, even with a religion that promises to deliver in the here, not the hereafter, and which has failed on every occasion.

[mwb970]

8. It's hard to imagine a scientist being a "birther", for example.

Scientists are smart, educated people who deal with reality and facts. Conservatives tend to be ignorant, provincial people who deal with faith and emotion (primarily endless fear). Never the twain shall meet; hence, 6%.

[no_hypocrisy]

13. More precisely, the conservatives choose a conclusion and scramble to find

"facts", sometimes manufactured and contrived, to "prove" their conclusions. Scientists, instead, gather and verify facts and arrange them for analysis, testing, and THEN find a conclusion.

[Johonny]

16. It's a real shock when you meet one

and yes nothing destroys your credibility faster than insane RW talking points in scientific circles. I know conservative scientists, but not many Republican scientists.

[TZ]

30. At a previous job I worked with a fellow lab tech

Who believed the Clintons murdered a bunch of people (starting with Vince foster) and that evolution was wrong because carbon dating was unreliable..:wtf: Appropriately he ended up leaving the lab and going into sales...

[PavePusher]

25. Well, for the record...

There're more than a few Dems/Progs that fit that mold as well.

"Republicans expect their followers to drink the koolaid even if it kills them. Faith without thinking. Antithesis of a scientist."

[stray cat]

2. Many are moderates who evaluate whether the GOP or Dems are the biggest idiots

at any moment of time and with any candidate

[Lasher]

4. Well just look at Sarah's fans.

Do you think a single one of them is a scientist?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

9. no

I don't think that they have a brain cell between them

[Gman]

5. Scientists deal in facts. You cannot be a Republican and deal with facts.

It's not possible.

[Cirque du So-What]

7. Conversely

My experience with engineers is quite the opposite. Overall, I find them to to be very conservative - even to the point of being reactionary. Any theories on why there's a difference between scientists & engineers?

[Tesha]

12. Engineers are used to manipulating things within a rather-narrow problem domain...

...and then expecting things to work out as planned.
They then assume that the same sorts of manipulations
will "obviously" work on much bigger, far more chaotic
systems such as human societies. In that way, they are
being naïve and immature, but that's quite often another
trait associated with engineers.

Tesha

[keith the dem]

14. Hey, I'm not immature and I R an engineer

You big booger snot!

[Tommy_J]

15. LOL!

[phasma ex machina]

22. Hoover was an engineer, as was Carter.

Jeff Riggenbach argues that Franklin Roosevelt governed more conservatively than Hoover.

[caraher]

24. I don't think it's the nature of engineering

Rather, I think engineering offers a better personal financial return on investment than science. The shortest path to making good money (at least for many years) if you were "good at science and math" was 4 years of engineering school. So while liberals generally aren't averse to making money, either, I do think people whose first love is the almighty dollar to skew conservative.

My father once told me how he chose his college major: he looked at a list of starting salaries, and at the time, chemical engineering was atop the list. That kind of thinking is so alien to me, but it is quite rational if you view the main purpose of college as placing you in a good position in the workforce.

[phasma ex machina]

29. Does one even DO chemical engineering in their basement? If not, why bother? nt

[TZ]

10. actually there are a lot of apolitical scientists.

They just don't give a damn about politics. The edge might be even bigger because of that. But to be fair, most I've known have been more liberal although I worked with one feller who was a YEC fundie.
One of the reasons I think more are liberal is that many conservatives are not interested in discovering new things..change bothers them...Scientists tend to be curious and interested in learning/discovering new things.

[Johonny]

17. this always amazes me

because almost all science stems from government funding in one way or another.

[TZ]

18. lol..

However to quote my ex-boss from NIH...."scientists are at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to funding".
I think thats were the hostility comes from many of the apolitical..I don't blame them..I've seen plenty of funding for scientific projects jerked around by politicians on both sides of the aisle..Don't even get me started at the political gamesmanship at NIH..

[left coaster]

11. Not surprising, when you consider that..

..reality does have a liberal bias. :)

[jsamuel]

19. I think the vast majority of scientists agree with evolution

and see the argument for a literal interpretation of the bible as the very antithesis of the scientific method. It is no wonder so few consider themselves conservative.

[Gregorian]

20. Because THINKING IS BAD.

You know, all of that "theoretical" stuff.

I've been holding my own personal study for years. Watching and listening to what people have to say. I've found that the conservative mentality jumps to conclusions, and maintains them as fact, and is combatant and defensive when challenged. These are not open minded individuals. And that is how you become a stagnant, unimaginative, close minded person.

[PavePusher]

26. And this never happens on the liberal side?

Riiiiight. Pull the other one, it's got bells on...

[phasma ex machina]

21. The false dichotomy of faith and science.

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman writes "Many scientists do believe in both science
and God, the God of revelation, in a perfectly consistent way" and more than 40 percent of people
who hold doctorates in science state that they attend houses of worship weekly, there is something
a bit smug about Harris' sweeping claims that faith is unreasonable or unscientific. - Atheism du Jour

[FiveGoodMen]

31. In what way does that address the OP?

[Avalux]

23. Because we THINK. n/t

[Dogmudgeon]

27. You can't go wrong with News 'n' Shit!

:thumbsup:

--d!