I must have missed that.
I did read where he said: "I’ve got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected I’d be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the Tea Party and science comprehension... ...I’m a little embarrassed, but mainly I’m just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken view..."
That doesn't sound like someone who "disregarded" what he found.
Fair enough. I was referring to the part where he wasn't going to change the sources of his misinformation.
You have to go t the actual source article, NOT the IJR story that quotes only a little bit.
The relevant “I saw the facts but they dont fit my prejudices so I ignore them” part of the professor’s article:
“Of course, I still subscribe to my various political and moral assessments—all very negative— of what I understand the “Tea Party movement” to stand for. I just no longer assume that the people who happen to hold those values are less likely than people who share my political outlooks to have acquired the sorts of knowledge and dispositions that a decent science comprehension scale measures.”
Yeah, “what I understand the “Tea Party movement” to stand for” not finding out what they ACTUALLY stand for.
And “moral assessments”?!?! From this guy?
*spit*