The Pew Survey in its site map has a listing for its data sets and I believe the CUNY survey does describe its methods.
I saw nothing in either about any Washington Times nor did I see any reason NOT to accept their results as anything other than what they were represented as...a survey with the stated and inherent limitations of such.
If you think both surveys are of no value, well, so be it. My reason for posting them was to give everyone interested a reference to go to and that only since I’m not in this spitting contest.
| 2009 membership | 2010 membership | Lost | Gained | |
| PCUSA | 2,934,952 | 2,844,952 | 90,000 | |
| PCA | 335,000 | 340,000 | 5,500 | |
| OPC | 21,123 | 21,530 | 407 | |
| Disappearing Presbyerians | 84,100 |
I know. Dr. E. linked to the Washington Times article which has no methodology or data listing. In looking at the Pew information, the bias is evident to me. The CUNY is more rigourous and almost completly clear of bias. However, as an engineer, I am used to looking at data and analysing them to come up with a conclusion; I am rather against searching for unsubstantiated (as in the case of quoting from the Washington Times article which had no data attached or listed) claims which happen to fit a particular mindset or predetermined conclusion.
I saw nothing in either about any Washington Times nor did I see any reason NOT to accept their results as anything other than what they were represented as...a survey with the stated and inherent limitations of such.
Given the history of antiCatholic bias by the Pew group, and given that the original postings here were bereft of any data, any reasonable approach would be to ask for the data and methodology and examine their inherent biases and the effect upon the conclusions. That was not complied with; instead, there was a victory dance waving this heretofore unsubstantiated claim in the air and chortling unbecomingly.
If you think both surveys are of no value, well, so be it. My reason for posting them was to give everyone interested a reference to go to and that only since I’m not in this spitting contest.
Oh no; I brought up the the CUNY poll, not as a champion of it, but rather as an example of rigourous polling procedures and accuracy in not only data acquisition, but in the final conclusions.
Let us look at the methodology between the two surveys:
CUNY: The first area of inquiry in ARIS 2001 concerns the response of American adults to the question: "What is your religion, if any?" This question generated more than a hundred different categories of response, which we classified into the sixty-five categories shown in Exhibit 1 below.
This is about as unbiased as you can get in leading off the survey. This is most likely to generate accurate data.
Pew: No question methodology listed anywhere on the Pew site that I could find. What were the questions and were they leading in any way? Don't know. From this alone, for me this invalidates the survey right off the start.
What do I mean by this? A very good British television program called Yes Minister has two government officials in conversation:
Sir Humphrey demonstrates how public surveys can reach opposite conclusions
[survey one]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there is lack of discipline and vigorous training in our Comprehensive Schools?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think young people welcome some structure and leadership in their lives?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do they respond to a challenge?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?
Bernard Woolley: Er, I might be.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes or no?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Of course, after all you've said, you can't say no to that. On the other hand, the surveys can reach opposite conclusions.
[survey two]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there's a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think it's wrong to force people to take arms against their will?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Would you oppose the reintroduction of conscription?
Bernard Woolley: Yes. [does a double-take]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: There you are, Bernard. The perfectly balanced sample.
One of the biggest reasons that entities like Pew and Zogby are often so far off when they engage in, for example, surveys predicting elections which have a measureable outcome, is that they do not construct their surveys with an intent to report on reality; they attempt to influence reality with how they construct their surveys.
lol. That doesn't matter when the intention is to mow down everything within range of the RCC which might have occasion to criticize her.
Thanks again for posting facts.