#16863: LochNess — 02/23  at  08:46 PM
Missed it by 'that' much.

Sorry about that, Chief.

#16883: — 02/23  at  10:49 PM
Of course the real honour is just being nominated. Of course.

But gosh it would have been nice to win.

Ah, next year perhaps.

#16888: coturnix — 02/23  at  11:35 PM
Well, we voted and rooted for you and it was sooooo close. Anyway, you got some great Left exposure to balance out the unwanted Right exposure you got yesterday.

BTW, Tangled Bank is up and it appears there was something wrong with e-mail as a number of posts appears to be missing. Nothing by YOU?! On Tangled Bank???? Or from 1000 birds? Or a Sci&Pol post I sent? And one from Thoughts from Kansas, and one from Evolution Project....

#16980: — 02/24  at  11:18 AM
I have a definitional question. The Koufax awards are for the "best of the left." It seems clear that "left" refers to political point of view. Pharyngula was nominated in the "expert" category, with the expertise identified as "science." Pharyngula contains both science and nonscience entries. Dr. Myers separates them. His left-of-center political point of view is often apparent in the nonscience entries. It is considerably less apparent -- mostly absent entirely -- in the science entries. Indeed, about the only "political" component of the science entries are contained in those critical of creationism, and even there it does not seem quite accurate to say that criticizing creationists on their "scientific" arguments is a matter of a left-of-center political perspective.

The concept of "left-of-center science" seems peculiar to me. I don't understand Dr. Myers as claiming an "expertise" for his nonscience views, or at least not in the same sense as the word is used for the science entries, and in any event as I understand the Koufax awards the nonscience entries would not be why the site was nominated. (I am, by the way, not suggesting that Dr. Myers is not an expert in the nonscience areas, but rather that these areas don't seem pertinent to the Koufax award nomination for expert science blog. I presume the award nomination was not meant to be for "best expert science blog written by a scientist who happens also to be left-of center politically.")

I'm perhaps picking a nit here, and my question is provoked by curiosity rather than anything critical, but I'd be interested if folks have thoughts about this idea of left-of-center science.

#16981: PZ Myers — 02/24  at  11:36 AM
Similarly, the Panda's Thumb tries to avoid a particular political position, but they were also nominated.

It's a weird thing. The extremist right has ended up staking out a position that consistently comes down on the side of bad science: on creationism, on global warming, on stem cell research. There are extreme Left positions that would conflict with good science, too, but they haven't been the subject of much news and activity lately. Instead, what's happened now is that the great majority of scientists end up opposing the right just by expressing reasonable views on science!

This is definitely an aberrant situation, and I hope it resolves itself with a more sensible Republican wing becoming dominant someday. In more rational times, you are exactly right that acting as a scientific expert wouldn't necessarily make you a darling of either political party (it should make you a darling of both...ah, I can still dream.) These are not such rational times.

One can hope that in a few years science expertise will no longer have any association with political liberalism, and then no one will think of me when the nominations for the Koufax come up. I guess that means I may not have many shots at winning one, darn it. I'll happily make that sacrifice if it means we have two parties that both support science and reason again, though.

#17003: — 02/24  at  12:50 PM
I agree that the examples of bad science you mention are currently associated primarily with right-of-center political perspectives, and that therefore good science on these matters can result in a scientist "opposing the right." On these matters.

There are several science (or at least science-related) areas that I am inclined to associate with "bad science" and "lefty political perspective," and which have a fairly high profile, for example,(some) alternative medicine (and its regulation), (some) paranormal phenomena, (a bunch of) "New Age" beliefs, (some) of the opposition to GM foods. I say this without benefit of actual data, and as an amateur, and I'd be pleased and receptive to hear of any actual data, either pro or con. Assuming, however, that (some of?) my inclinations are accurate, then scientists doing good science in these areas would seem to be "opposing the left." In these areas.

I suppose a question might be whether "good science" in general can validly be characterized as "left" or "right" politically (in these times). My impression is that you are correct and the answer is yes, but that's only an impression. I think the "bad science" examples you identified are about subjects which, overall, are more important than the ones I've tentatively suggested ... but I wonder how big the gap in importance is.

As for living in "rational times," I agree these aren't but I wonder if any ever were. (I do share your dream....)

#17074: mattH — 02/25  at  01:57 AM
Too bad on the "loss". I only voted once, simply to keep bandwith issues down. I should know better.

I think it's fair to say that there is little support from most of the "left" for the things that you point to, especially from what might be termed the established political powers on the left, whereas much of what is supported on the other side in the way of bad science has at least nominal support from the greater powers. This isn't to say that the left couldn't or hasn't supported blatently bad science, but it certainly seems to be magnitudes less now (as with so many other things).

I think it's also worth mentioning that the segregation of the blog into a science-only blog feed and the total set of posts was done at the request of a reader who wanted to expose family and friends to the science without turning them off with the much more in-your-face progressivism of the blog as a whole.

Oh, and thanks for the Mouse Words link. It is really good.

#17128: Ophelia Benson — 02/25  at  02:00 PM
Drat. I mean, yeah, congratulations to the winnas, but drat, I wanted P and PT to win.

"There are several science (or at least science-related) areas that I am inclined to associate with “bad science” and “lefty political perspective,” and which have a fairly high profile, for example,(some) alternative medicine (and its regulation), (some) paranormal phenomena, (a bunch of) “New Age” beliefs, (some) of the opposition to GM foods."

You're pretty much describing the content of a certain website I could mention.

"I say this without benefit of actual data, and as an amateur, and I’d be pleased and receptive to hear of any actual data, either pro or con."

You could find a lot of articles on the very subjects you cite at that website I could mention.

#17133: — 02/25  at  02:43 PM
I read that unmentioned website religiously (sic). The information I'd welcome is about whether bad science in these areas can be associated with political handedness.

#17142: — 02/25  at  03:51 PM
What's sad is that the Dalai Lama, from Tibet, by way of East Nowhere, India, is more up on science than US conservatives.

#17160: Ophelia Benson — 02/25  at  07:08 PM
Ah - thanks for all the incense!

Yeah, I think bad science can be associated with both kinds of political handedness. Both right and left have some goals, hopes, desires, ambtions, etc, that are (or can be seen as) in tension with some empirical facts and/or some possible empirical facts, some hypotheses based on ongoing research, and so on. Both sides are liable to the temptation to blur or evade the truth. (That's not information, which is what you asked for, it's just me asserting, but there is information on the subject around, here and there.)