this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2026
60 points (82.6% liked)
science
23883 readers
530 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So, these scientists were asked to evaluate a political question, "Is there a link between immigration and welfare support?" using a large survey dataset. Not like they were asked whether temperature data supported anthropogenic climate change. The 158 scientists were in 71 teams and did, collectively, of 1200 statistical tests.
An overwhelming majority of all analyses found no link between immigration policies and support for welfare programs, regardless of investigator ideology. A handful of outlier models, where an effect could be found, show effects that correlated with the team's politics, but it's hard for me to look at the mountain of "no effect" conclusions and agree with the statement "politics predicted the results." "Politics predicted the outliers," OK.
Actual study: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adz7173
Yeah, the title is LOOSELY accurate. But wildly misleading.
(2% of) Scientists (over there at the fringe) base results on politics!
Once something is wildly misleading, it loses all claim to being accurate in any measure. This is the kind of “accuracy” that Satan applies when lying based on a grain of truth.
Absolutely