• human@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    Calling looking at the methodology and questioning its voracity “science denial” is wild.

    YouGov is self selecting. I’m sure they do true random polling in some capacity too, but both linked studies said they were web surveys of YouGov users selected bases on their profile demographics to be a representative group.

    My issue is that by the pool only being YouGov users, just balancing on ideology is not the same as random sampling.

    Not claiming to be a data scientist here, just reading the study and applying some healthy skepticism.

    If I’m wrong and the methods are sound then great, I would be happy to believe that that many Americans actually believe that.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Calling looking at the methodology and questioning its voracity “science denial” is wild.

      That’s not what you did, you based it off two polls being done by the same polling company…

      I looked at the methodology, then informed you it was fine…

      Not claiming to be a data scientist here, just reading the study and applying some healthy skepticism.

      I am fully aware that you:

      1. Don’t know about this subject

      2. Are shitting on science because you don’t understand it

      3. Are now claiming to be “just asking questions”

      The only thing I’m not clear on, is why you believe this is different than any other science denier.

      But I think trying to get you to understand enough to answer that question, will go the same as asking any other science denier why they don’t believe in a certain field of science.

      • human@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        I think the issue here is you are reading

        Looks like it’s a YouGov survey, and the article cites a second YouGov survey as corroboration, so I’m not sure how scientifically rigorous this is.

        As

        Looks like it’s a <any firm> survey, and the article cites a second <the same firm> survey as corroboration, so I’m not sure how scientifically rigorous this is.

        My issue is with it being YouGov specifically, not that both were from the same source. Then I looked at the PDFs themselves to confirm they were opt-in web surveys before adding my edit.

        Personally I do think he’s guilty and would love it if 71% think he was at least complicit.

        Not really interested in taking this further though. Enjoy your day.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Science, y’know, matters.

          It’s not mutually exclusive, but statistical analysis is both science and matters