* Science can't be all bad if it allowed for computers and thus the Internet.
** Of course, maybe science IS bad if it helped create the Internet...
*** Then again, how would TVTropes exist without the Internet?
**** On paper, with an elaborate cataloguing system in some grand steampunk library somewhere. Or maybe as a 'zine.
**** Which is BAD. Too much risk of paper cuts. Besides, as [[Webcomic/GirlGenius Phil]] [[PhilFoglio Foglio]] will tell you, SteamPunk ''is'' SCIENCE!
***** [[JerkAss Gaslight Fantasy, but who's counting?]]
*** [[TVTropesWillRuinYourLife Science is bad because it enabled TVTropes]].
*** [[TVTropesWillEnhanceYourLife Science is good because it enabled TVTropes]]. Honestly, how else could we get SugarWiki?
*** SugarWiki is bad because it TastesLikeDiabetes. And it [[TVTropesWillRuinYourLife will ruin your life]]. However, I am [[DeadpanSnarker speaking some very fluent smartass right now]]. Science is good, but [[TVTropesWillRuinYourLife TV Tropes is bad]].
* The main reason that science is always the bad guy is that most tv shows, books, games and...anything, are written by creative people, rather than scientific ones. I know that splitting the population in two is hardly fair, but most people do go one way or the other, and writers tend to be on the creative team. It's the right brain, left brain thing.
** Not exactly. [[ViewersAreMorons Most of the population doesn't use either side of their brains at all]].
** The left-brained person being more logical and analytical vs. the right-brained person being creative and artistic is total HollywoodPsychology, incidentally. Which side of your brain is larger depends mostly on whether you are right- or left-handed; righties are always left-brained (their right side of the brain is slightly larger) because the motor and sensory cortexes for the right side of your body are located on the left side of your brain. Lefties are about half right-brained and half left-brained, for reasons not fully understood. (For this reason they're normally excluded from neurological experimental groups.) In general, most structures in the brain are fairly symmetrical, which is good because there's a treatment for particularly bad epilepsy that involves having [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispherectomy half of the brain removed]] and while there are some negative effects, mostly related to sensory and motor issues with the side of the body, personality changes are notably not one of them. There are some exceptions to this, notably involving language comprehension, but there are no known links between personality and hemisphere dominance.
*** The myth of a separate personality for each hemisphere of the brain comes primarily from early studies of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain split-brain patients]] (a patient who has had the corpus callosum severed, either surgically or accidentally), where the inability of the two hemispheres to communicate directly with each other can lead to some rather odd behaviour. For example: when a patient with their speech-centre located in the left hemisphere has their right field of vision blocked, they may become unable to identify objects that are shown to them, as only the right hemisphere can see the object in question. Asking (using a non-verbal communication method, such as written commands) their right-brain to perform a task - e.g. walking around the room - and then asking them why they did it also produces a strange effect: they will either be unable to explain their behaviour, or invent a fictional reason. Another possible effect is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_hand_syndrome Alien Hand Syndrome]].
** It might be suggested that the split is not so much between creative vs. logical as it is between rebellion vs. conformity. Since the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, pretty much every attempt to reject, transcend or strike away from the "mainstream" has involved dealing with the mainstream's embrace of science, technology, and the associated mindsets (or the pop culture version of those mindsets, at any rate). It's unsurprising that the majority of artistic differentiation will take the form of critiquing the costs and losses brought by new sciences and technologies, and that some of the more extreme critiques will take a the-benefit-is-not-worth-the-cost stance.
** I don't think it's a matter of creativity vs. logic ''or'' conformity vs. rebellion. It's simply the same principle that results in PacManFever, TotallyRadical and the occasional MagicalComputer. A large portion of the population does not understand science. Which is fine. Not everyone has to. But a large portion ''of'' that large portion is ''willfully'' blind to scientific principles for the same basic reason my grandmother refuses to learn to use any technology newer than a television remote or a microwave - what we don't understand is ''scary'', and understanding something we didn't grow up with requires effort. Mind you, that doesn't excuse this trope - it's an incredibly lazy and narrow-minded point of view that essentially amounts to saying "Anything that was invented or discovered after the prime of my life - mine, specifically - is useless at best and evil at worst, and I want everyone to know that." How better to get the point across than to sensationalize and further demonize what we already don't understand?
* We're forgetting that the only ''real'' ScienceIsBad works are those that push the ideal of primitivism as one of the main themes, i.e. ''Fight Club'' (the book). In anything else, the theme is almost always HumansAreBastards; the technology in question is only a vehicle for showing off that "hey, y'know us humans are pretty fucking stupid/ignorant/hateful/selfish/careless/insert negative trait of your choice", or even to reinforce another theme entirely. For example, in ''Cat's Cradle'' by Kurt Vonnegut, [[spoiler:a rather selfish/slightly nutty scientist invents a new form of ice that would end life on Earth in an instant if, say, dropped into the ocean. How does it end? You guessed it, a chance occurrence leads to someone dropping the fucker right into the Caribbean. The message here is that 1) humans are completely insane and utterly foolish, and 2) sometimes, terrible shit happens for no reason at all, purely by chance, so we might as well laugh about it, right?]] Nothing in there about the evils of technology. And that's how I see most "ScienceIsBad" works.
** Yeah, you're right. None of these examples are ''true'' scotsmen.
*** You do know that the NoTrueScotsmen fallacy don't apply to things that actually needed a specific trait for it to be considered something. In other words, things like Politics, Religion, etc. that required people to act and believe in a certain way means that this fallacy doesn't apply. Same thing for the troper two spaces above who made a good point. ScienceIsBad, by definition, is when a work shows that well, Science is bad. If the work actually shows that HumansAreBastards instead, than it doesn't qualify is ScienceIsBad.
** SCIENCE! shall one day cure humansarebastards anyways.
*** That's pretty easy, all you need is an icepick.
**** But then you're stuck with GoodIsDumb.
** Science is just one way to set up a crisis or conflict, and whether a piece of work qualifies as "Science is Bad" depends on its tenor. Is the author pulling a GreenAesop? Is there a Filibuster of any kind? Is someone advancing a slippery-slope argument ("Now we have cloned a sheep, next we will clone an army of Hitlers")? Is there a sympathetic character who laments how technology has ruined the human race? Is there an ''un''sympathetic scientist who says things like "I'm only interested in knowledge; how humanity will fare is not my concern"? If the answer to these are "no", then the work is probably not using this trope. It is also notable that very few CyberPunk novels have made it to the list (the last time I checked, only ''Feed'' by M.T. Anderson), despite the setting being almost universally dystopian and dehumanizing.
* So I was watching a show on the genetic engineering of plants, and there were these people who were against it, even against sending send plants and seeds of plants to starving people in African countries. Their reasoning was that the people could end up growing three eyes or some thing. First off, there are probably a lot of people out there who would rather grow an extra eye than starve to death. Second, where the hell are these people getting their information on genetic engineering? Did they read Marvel comic books and watch TheSimpsons and take them seriously? If genetically engineered plants turned people into mutants, not only would we have a LOT of mutants walking around, but the FDA probably wouldn't permit these plants to be produced, let alone sold, to begin with!
** There is emerging research that's showing that genetic engineering isn't quite what we thought it to be. There are reports of rats becoming sterile and developing various diseases from eating GMO corn, so that's probably the reason people are alarmed. Granted, it's not entirely conclusive, but it's there. And as for what the FDA approves of, do you know how many ads there are that say "If you've taken X pill/drug and now have Y disease..."? I'm just saying...
** All of above cited research has been widely criticized by rest of scientific comunity and was completely desproven on methodological, scientific and moral grounds. In one instance the sterilization occured after lab animals were fed GMO DESIGNED to make them sterile, other times results were fabricated and every time the researchers associated were known for being second-grade, crackpots, or both. Anyone citing this research as an argument in GMO debate is seriously required to Do more research or if everything else fails use common sense.
** People fear that which they don't know (as mentioned above), and that fear extends into looking further into it. If you think about it, if this is the primary reason for Science Is Bad, then it's a vicious cycle: They fear science because they think it's bad. But if they do research and read up on what they're going to criticize about, they may fear of becoming associated with the scientists they're criticizing because they're using similar argumentative techniques. Thus, they purposely did no research to distance themselves away from the scientists. Christian fundamentalists like Creator/JackChick function precisely that way; I would presume these guys in the documentary you saw function this way too.
* Is it just me, or do some people not seem to get that it isn't ''science'' that's bad, it's how you use it. The same goes for the oft-misquoted "[[Literature/TheBible Money is the root of all evil]]". Now, money has certainly motivated many people to do bad things, and it ''has'' been used for evil since it was invented, but in reality, money isn't a bad thing. What about charities? Or money for a therapy/treatment to cure a horrible disease? That's why the real quote is "The ''love of'' money is the root of all evil." Okay, I'm not saying that if you like science, then it's evil. It's all in how you use it. What saddens me is how people can't make the connection.
** Same poster, to add to the point: Why are so many people of the opinion that science is a bad thing? Why can't science be neutral, like water. You can hydrate yourself, or drown someone; you can engineer a bioweapon, or make a CureForCancer. Honest to God, why are people so dense?
* Sometimes Science is Bad is actually another trope. Corrupt Corporate Executive is a common one. It can also be a backlash against Outgrown Such Silly Superstitions.
** In actual fact, in both real life and in fiction, Science is Bad is more accurately labeled as scientists are bad. Science is a process, a tool if you want an analogy. Most of the bad things about science is really down to how it is used. Usually in movies this is shown as scientists being pressured by the military/government/corporation/something that isnt the scientists themselves to use science to do evil. Or otherwise its a Mad Scientist analogy. While I hate to use the Banality of Evil argument this isn't actually so, the most harm science can do is not when a Scientist is being a well intentioned extremist or a mad scientist but when the scientist in question in the work simply does not care, uses vague ethical sounding language whose meanings are not only not concrete, but completely fluid and mean whatever he wishes and ignores the moral and philosophical concerns out of sheer hubris, (while being completely rational minded, a mad scientist not only doesn't care but is usually out to prove something or takes perverse pleasure in the evil done or is genuinely mad). Alot of insightful discoveries have been made, (Pavlov's experiments, the Skinner box and several other psychological conditioning experiments usually involving what many today would consider outright torture), while most of the world either had no idea what was going on or simply had not developed the concepts to understand the full implications of what has been down and is essentially some scientists seeing how much they can get away with before petty things like legal and moral concerns catch up to them and often justify their actions retroactively. The redefinition of death from cardio-respiratory to brain death for example, while raising genuine medical concerns about when exactly death occurs, was, for example, largely motivated by the desire to gain more donor organs rather then solving the legitimate scientific puzzle.