I get it. Because, well, I feel the same. It’s fascinating and fun. A great many of you who “love science” likely will agree that science is “great.”

After all, if you’re a westerner over the age of thirty or so, your early science education was quite literally designed to be fun. Experiments, demos, labs; in school and on television, these exciting displays and interactions were something to look forward to, our teachers were lovable wild-haired eccentrics, and we had celebrity friends like Carl Sagan and Bill Nye.

So it’s no wonder that you fucking love science. But what do you really mean when you say those words? This isn’t the battle cry of the credentialed scientist, but the exclamation of the reasonably well-educated layperson, who rarely engages in experimentation. Knowing this, is it really science we’re talking about, or something more?

To Fucking Love Science is to belong, to declare membership, to tote a banner. So what are the deeply held beliefs among the ranks of science “fans?” It’s more than an intent to share an interest in scientific method. There’s a political subtext, which can *sometimes* include the following:

- distrust of or disdain for religious ideas and doctrine
- frustration with the poorly educated
- belief in the right to choose
- belief in man-made climate change
- belief in the geologic age of Earth
- belief in the likelihood of other intelligent life in the universe
- belief in western medicine
- trust of technology and data
- love of “geeks”
- and so on…

The political consequence to wearing “science” like a bumper sticker is complex, both to the believer and society. What does it mean when “science” is allegiance to a side; a weapon against “ignorance?” Ostensibly a science “fan” would never be ignorant; their knowledge and love of science proves their intellect and rationality. Right?

But do you really love science? “Cool” pictures and videos, Internet memes; little bites of sharable content. It may not be science exactly, but things you like that relate to scientific observations. Even the lovable science-tainment we were lucky to have while growing up — is that a complete picture?

Science can certainly be cool. And yet it also carries a whole set of outcomes which aren’t always as popular to include in our list of loves:

- Hiroshima/Nagasaki
- Eugenics
- Genetic modification in plants and humans
- Product testing on animals
- Killing giraffes for their “common” genes
- Financialization of markets/economies
- Measurement-based education
- GDP and unemployment numbers as health measures
- Behavioral economics
- Global warming (yes)
- Extinction of journalism
- Extinction of small local retail
- Extinction of species

Yes, it’s true, we could argue for eons about which of these are directly attributable to scientific advances. And of course you can potentially use any ideal or discipline for either “good” or “evil;” science has no moral inclination. However science makes a great many things possible. Among them are unpleasant or sad inventions, practices, and schools of thought. As Copenhagen Zoo scientific director Bengt Holst recently said upon euthanizing their “genetically redundant” giraffe: “If we’re serious about science, we can’t be led by emotion.”

According to this logic, in order to love science you must love the whole of scientific method, not just the cute animals and happy endings, but the cruel decisions, unfortunate technological developments and monstrosities alike. And yet Holst, in his rational spirit couldn’t be more wrong. Science is entirely accountable to and interwoven with the field of ethics, and scientists themselves *can* achieve a healthy balance of materialist and humanist ideals. Knowing this, perhaps then “certainty” is the culprit, as is so eloquently described in this brilliant op-ed piece: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/the-dangers-of-certainty/

Indeed it seems the problem could begin and end with certainty, having nothing to do with science itself, (the opposite of certainty.) After all, shouldn’t we attribute the “bad outcomes” to arrogance, hubris, greed, shallowness of intellect, or flaw of character? And lo, it isn’t long before we slide down the slope and end up in an ever-so-familiar ditch, the argument about whether guns kill people. And I won’t try to win the argument for gun control here, even though I firmly believe a gun, like science, and like technology, does in fact kill. It can’t kill on its own, no. Not yet. But it does kill. And humans, with our agency, we help kill. We work with all our tools and resources, and sometimes they help us kill more readily, more frequently, more efficiently. What we once could crudely do with our bare hands and teeth, we can now do with trivial effort, given the proper tools. “Sometimes we save lives more efficiently,” you say! And you’re right. There is absolutely no question that there are two sides to this story.

One side contains the Wonders of Science. The awe-inspiring, the accomplishments and human triumphs, the thought-provoking theories and mind-expanding visuals. Yet ironically, the bias of Science Lovers is entirely emotional, skewing toward the beautiful, inspiring, and the seemingly magical. What many love is the bright side. And to love the bright side is neither rational nor scientific. To love the bright side is human.

So what does it matter, why would there be a reason to question earnest appreciation for the natural wonders of the universe? No reason other than the perception of a word; when the world at large comes to understand these Wondrous Things as the whole of “science.” Because in that single stroke, they are oversimplifying an important concept and perpetuating a lie, one that works mostly to the advantage of those already in power. Innocently expressing that emotional bias, they further distort the reality of scientific “attitude,” unwittingly negating the perception of science’s potential to transform in negative ways.

When we carry this bias, we pass down one half of the story to future generations, while further burying the possible narrative that a scientific bias in culture and power structures could be more than just intelligent or enlightened thinking, but could in fact pose a problem. Perhaps this scientific bias could be the very trait that gets us all nowhere at lightning speed. With only one side of the story, we’ll miss the warning signs.

You may love the “beautiful”, the “cool,” the “humane,” the “productive.” (We are all inclined to.) But what of the rest, the warts and all? At the very least, it seems we may need more fucking signifiers to fucking explain what we fucking mean when we say “science.”

EDIT: A recent Baffler issue had some interesting articles about the role of science:

http://thebaffler.com/past/whats_the_point_if_we_cant_have_fun

http://thebaffler.com/past/a_thing_or_two