Humans are suckers for a white labcoat. Regardless of qualifications - real or implied - nothing increases the likelihood of us believing some schmo is telling the truth like the thin veneer of science. Why else would Mehmet Oz consistently show up in public in surgical scrubs?

Not one of us believes Oz sweeps breathlessly from the operating room to his daytime TV studio without even wasting time to change before gravely explaining the dangers of Chinese apple juice to stay-at-home moms.

No - it's a sham. I might go so far as to call it bullshit.

Western society is so invested in the myth that nerds in goggles know everything - from how to observe dark matter to why nuclear decay created life on Earth - that we never stop to ask whether any of it makes sense. The myth demands an existential binary: either science explains it all, or what we observe isn't real.

The problem, however, is that science cannot explain all phenomena in the Universe, including gender, sexuality, social harmony, and human thought. We only pretend science can because admitting "I don't know" scares us far more than Dr. Oz's version of the truth.

Genetics or eugenics?

Conservative anti-Queer rhetoric is compelling precisely because of its apparently simple root in science. We observe genetics defines our bodies, our biochemistry, and our health. It is a short road to believe genetics could also define our thoughts, our emotions, or our identity.

As a result, many studies attempt to explain sexuality and gender, from the "gay gene," the "trans gene," and prenatal estrogen exposure. In these cases, conservatives find it convenient to cast science as The Objective and Omniscient Arbiter of Truth. After all, it sounds science-y, even if the evidence is in no way conclusive. (Meanwhile, no explanation exists for denying decades of global climate data.)

Why bother with the thin veneer of science? In short, if we can explain human behavior solely through biology, we can attempt to control it. When we find the "gay gene," we can breed it out of humanity.

Rather than admit we don't know the origin of human identity, conservatives focus on human harmony by ejecting anyone different. Double points if the undesirables are in a marginalized community.

Designed for disharmony

Why do humans isolate and eliminate undesirables? One book posits that evolution "designs" humans to thrive only in certain environments. Human disharmony is the natural result of modern Western society failing to conform to our evolutionary design.

Evolution, however, is driven by how easily an organism reproduces, and the characteristics that improve the chance of progeny aren't necessarily the same as those that improve long-term survival. In other words, evolution favors the fortunately fertile, even if it betrays the biologically better.

Here, the thin veneer of science covers up one of the fundamental axioms of systems theory: optimizing components of a system individually leads to sub-optimization of the system as a whole. That is, when each human has the luxury not to give a damn about their neighbor, the neighborhood as a whole is less inviting.

Humans today have little need to adapt to hostile conditions. Instead, humans design the situation in which we live, and we designed one that allows personal laziness at the expense of social harmony.

Portraying the choice humans play in our situation as how capitalism works is convenient, but it does not demonstrate that human thought is the motive factor behind societal tension.

Diagramming human thought

What does human thought look like? Another book claims Mind Maps are effective because they model the structure and function of a neuron. After all, true Mind Maps contain a nucleus and branching connections. Mind Maps capture human thought so well because they look the way neurons help us think.

This thin veneer of science doesn't hold up well. Assuming thought is the same as individual neurons firing in sequence, most of the activity is outside the nucleus, operating through the axon.

More to the point, the basic structure and function of neurons in the human neocortex (associated with human-level thought) are similar to those in other organisms, including birds and reptiles. The once-popular Truine brain model, which places the human neocortex in a vaunted position of special functionality, has lost favor in the past three decades.

To be clear, Mind Maps are powerful in their operation. But the power stems not from similarity to biological systems. Why, then, would the author go to such lengths to relate a thinking tool to an extremely common, but wholly inappropriate, observation in Nature?

The science of aesthetics

What is it we fear? We fear saying three words: "I don't know."

There is poetry in believing our identity is coded into every cell of our body. Viewing the human experience as a biological hologram paints humans as technical marvels. But admitting we don't know why some people are gay or transgender is trite.

There is poetry in believing humans should not exist in a system fueled by dopamine and caffeine. Viewing each human as greater than the sum of society's parts feeds our hunger for personal glory. But admitting we don't know why humans simultaneously want all the money in the world and connection to each other is hackneyed.

And there is poetry in believing human thought can be captured in a diagram of colors, words, images, and sensations. Viewing our fragile, fleeting visions as scientifically mandated ignites our dreams of immortality. But admitting we don't know how humans think is insipid.

The purpose of the thin veneer of science comes down to aesthetics. These examples are aesthetically pleasing to shield us from the alternative, which is to admit ignorance.

But the real problem is not ignorance - saying "I don't know" is one the most powerful ways to discover our differences; to kindle connection, compassion, and collaboration out of isolation; to create new and exciting thoughts to propel our understanding of the Universe further.

The blunt weapon of science

The veneer of science is a limit on what humans can and will accomplish. If we wait for science to grant a tenuous validation to social solutions, we lose the ability to respond to social issues. Humans don't have to know why something is true or why something works in order for it to be so.

I am not anti-science. But I am anti-rationalization, anti-justification, and anti-weaponization of the ways we don't understand the Universe.

The Scientific Method entails observing the Universe to find patterns, and - if possible - to explain the phenomena we observe. But the Scientific Method depends on one specific human behavior.

If we observe it, it's there. It's real. It's true.

At least, it's there, real, and true unless and until we find examples that show our original observations were wrong. And if we were wrong, we have cause for elation! Being wrong, saying "I don't know," gives us the opportunity to try again.

The beauty of the human experience lies not in erecting razor wire around what we choose to be possible. The beauty of the human experience lies in reaching beyond, opening our hearts and minds, and seeking the impossible.