The Science of "Disestimation": The Shortcomings of Opinion Polls

Why we shouldn't put our faith in opinion polls

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

At the end of September the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released a survey that seemed to show that nonbelievers knew more about religion than the faithful. Some media outlets crowed about the results (“Atheists Know More about Religion Than Believers,” Time magazine declared), whereas others turned to comforting the faithful (“We Didn’t Flunk the Religion Test,” FoxNews.com insisted). Few seemed to realize that the polls were far from immaculate. In fact, the episode was a good example of what I call disestimation: the act of taking fuzzy numbers way too seriously.

At first, it might seem like a cut-and-dried story: out of 32 quiz questions, atheists and agnostics, on average, got 20.9 correct, higher than any other group and higher than the overall average of 16.0 questions right. But because Pew managed to reach very few atheists and agnostics—only 212 people out of the 3,412 included in the survey—the 20.9 number masks a tremendous amount of imprecision. Small samples don’t give reliable numbers, and if you pre­sent the poll results using a standard graphical technique to represent uncertainty (below), you can see that the distinction between atheists/agnostics and Jews and Mormons evaporates.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The story gets even fuzzier because Pew left out one category altogether: those who believe “nothing in particular,” many of whom had specifically said they didn’t believe in God. Interestingly, this group scored worse than the typical American on the religion quiz. Had they been lumped together with atheists and agnostics, the group would have fared a little worse, on average, than evangelical Protestants.

When Pew did a more stringent analysis, correcting for respondents’ education and income (which, sadly, was buried deep in the report), there was no significant difference between believers and nonbelievers. Those who said they did not believe in God scored a mere 0.3 point higher than the national average, a meaningless number, given how big the error bars are.

The press leaped on the atheists versus believers headlines without critically examining the numbers. The Pew study revealed less about our faith in God than it did about our faith in polls—which, far too often, is blind.

Charles Seife is director of the Arthur L. Carter Institute of Journalism at New York University and the author of seven books, including a history of fusion, Sun in a Bottle, and a biography of a major scientist, Hawking Hawking.

More by Charles Seife
Scientific American Magazine Vol 303 Issue 6This article was published with the title “The Science of 'Disestimation': The Shortcomings of Opinion Polls” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 303 No. 6 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican122010-6ImAljm3bDeDmtvRbF1zrJ

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe