I've written at length in the past about why Zogby polls, conducted on behalf of the Discovery Institute and invariably showing that a large percentage of the public supports "teaching the controversy," shouldn't be relied upon. I was about to blog about this topic yet again, but Matt Nisbet beats me to it, and does a far better and more exhaustive job debunking the latest pro-ID poll than I myself would have done. Suffice it to say that by touting these surveys, Discovery is undermining the science of polling in pretty much the same way that it is undermining the science of evolution.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I want to add a point to my response to the Disco. Inst.'s claim that TFN's survey of Texas biology teachers is a "push-poll" and "jackbooted thuggery."
That language is unbecoming and unprofessional, but we have all come to expect that from the Discovery Institute.
It is also hypocritical.
I…
Chris Mooney has a link to this analysis of recent polling data. The analysis was written by David Masci. The subject: How Americans feel about science and faith. Mooney thinks the data supports the Matt Nisbet line that people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens hurt the cause. I…
Yesterday was a very good day for science education in the midwest. I wrote last week about ongoing controversies in Michigan and Ohio as advocates of intelligent design (ID) were trying to find a way, any way, to weaken science education and open the door at least a crack for the introduction of…
Remember when I invited readers to take a survey on the Miss USA evolution answers? And I was kinda vague about why I was doing it? At last it can be told, I was working on a guest blog post at Scientific American. You should read the whole thing, but here's the bit about how I used the survey…
Seems like this would be of interest.
WU DEMANDS THE WHITE HOUSE EXPLAIN REPORTS OF SCIENTIFIC MANIPULATIONS & CENSORSHIP
Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy agrees to investigate incident at Oregon State University
Washington, DC -- Today Dr. John Marburger, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), appeared before the U.S. House Committee on Science to defend the President's budget proposal on research and development funding levels. As a member of the Science Committee, Congressman David Wu took the opportunity to address continued reports of scientific manipulations and censorship by the Administration.
"It has been more than two years since allegations of scientific manipulations and censorship were first made against the Administration," commented Congressman Wu. "Despite assurances that these claims had no validity, the allegations have continued and they are not confined to a single office or agency."
Congressman Wu asked Dr. Marburger to explain why the American public is still learning about incidents even after OSTP wrote to assure Congress that scientific integrity was not a problem within the Administration.
Congressman Wu continued, "recent events regarding Dr. Hansen at NASA, the mysterious transformation of the Administration's report on offshoring, and the suspension of a forest research grant at Oregon State University have sent a chill down the spines of the academic and research communities.
"Dr. Marburger, what have you done to investigate these incidents and what actions will be taken in the future to ensure information is not suppressed or altered to fit a preferred policy?"
In response, Dr. Marburger called the politicization of science "undesirable" and agreed to look into the incident at Oregon State University. After insistence from Congressman Wu, Dr. Marburger agreed to provide the results of an investigation in writing.
Congressman Wu concluded his remarks by stating, "Dr. Marburger, the academic and science communities are listening. We need results, not just empty promises."
Thanks Chris - Excellent fisking by Dr. Nisbet.
Too bad we don't have more reporters that actually get it.
Yup, journalists need to be very careful about which polls they cite, and should make sure they are not self-interested. It's very similar to how they ought to be treating think tanks.