Poll of the Day > Scientists OVERWHELMINGLY reject Trump in Nature poll

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02963-5

8% support Trump
86% support Biden

I guess this is the natural consequence of a president who rejects science

Unfortunately I didn't get to participate in the poll

---

The only surprising thing about that is that Trump's scoring so high there.

---

8% of scientists are prats basically.

6% of scientists are hiding inside a box.

---

9/10 dentists agree/recommend...

ever wonder what's up with the 10th dentist?

---

LuciferSage posted...

ever wonder what's up with the 10th dentist?

he's huffing the nitrous oxide, ok?

---

adjl posted...

The only surprising thing about that is that Trump's scoring so high there.

I dunno, you're bound to get some split between parties. Knowing that, a difference of ten-to-one is enormous.

---

LuciferSage posted...

9/10 dentists agree/recommend...

ever wonder what's up with the 10th dentist?

You do occasionally get scientists (and presumably, other similar experts like dentists) who don't understand or straight up reject science, which is weird. They learn science by memorization of facts that they don't necessarily believe rather than a system that can be understood.

---

LuciferSage posted...

9/10 dentists agree/recommend...

ever wonder what's up with the 10th dentist?

I'm guessing that's just advertising-speak for "we couldn't get complete consensus on the matter and we can't legally round up to 10 because that would imply we had," similar to Lysol claiming to kill "99.99% of germs." They could indicate greater consensus by being more precise, but that would lose the snappiness of "9 out of 10," and advertisers like snappiness. I'm guessing it's also legal to round up from 85%, and really, getting somewhere between 85 and 100% of professionals surveyed to say that your product works isn't all that hard (presuming it actually does work).

Clench281 posted...

I dunno, you're bound to get some split between parties. Knowing that, a difference of ten-to-one is enormous.

It really does speak to how absurdly people will cling to party loyalty that it's still that high, but yeah. It's pretty clear where science stands on the matter.

---

adjl posted...

I'm guessing that's just advertising-speak for "we couldn't get complete consensus on the matter and we can't legally round up to 10 because that would imply we had," similar to Lysol claiming to kill "99.99% of germs." They could indicate greater consensus by being more precise, but that would lose the snappiness of "9 out of 10," and advertisers like snappiness. I'm guessing it's also legal to round up from 85%, and really, getting somewhere between 85 and 100% of professionals surveyed to say that your product works isn't all that hard (presuming it actually does work).

Alternatively, the 10th dentist teamed up with the last 0.01% of germs to take over the world

---

wolfy42 posted...

6% of scientists are hiding inside a box.

I'd argue their conclusions are perpetually "inconclusive," calling into question what sort of science they study or how effective they are in their respective fields. However, I have insufficient evidence to make this argument anything more than a hypothesis.

---

I've heard the phrasing of the question is manipulative. Like, "would you recommend people brush their teeth with BRAND toothpaste, over not brushing at all?"

---

adjl posted...

I'm guessing that's just advertising-speak for "we couldn't get complete consensus on the matter and we can't legally round up to 10 because that would imply we had," similar to Lysol claiming to kill "99.99% of germs." They could indicate greater consensus by being more precise, but that would lose the snappiness of "9 out of 10," and advertisers like snappiness. I'm guessing it's also legal to round up from 85%, and really, getting somewhere between 85 and 100% of professionals surveyed to say that your product works isn't all that hard (presuming it actually does work).

The problem here is that legitimate statistics already have such a thing in place called a "margin of error." It measures the sample size and tells you how reliable the data might be, with anything greater than 3 being unacceptable for anything that isn't modern American media. You can poll ten, twenty, or a thousand people, and the representation of the actual population will only grow so much. So missing out on 6% of opinions isn't really a margin of error if it's just left out of a poll result. So the question we should be asking is if the 6% was indeterminate, or if the poll was, altogether, a load of crap, which can be answered more or less by seeking out the margin or error I have just mentioned.

The case of Lysol and other disinfectants is a little different in that the sanitizers cannot kill every last pathogen due to inherent limitations (whether by certain resilient strains or by overwhelming numbers), so the 99.9 is listed as the minimum acceptability of the product's effectiveness before it is made and shipped out in vast quantities.

---

Fake news my dudes. Scientists actually love Trump because he knows more than everybody about everything. And you would know this if you got all your news from Facebook instead of the hollywood elitist deep state fake news.

---

just sharing some more of my rejection

---

72 out of 900 people benefiting from a republican president doesn't seem that ridiculous.

---