Definitely! Perhaps "potential scientific explanation" would be a more accurate phrase.

And I agree, that's another thing that bugs me about discussions of science: all too often, there's an attitude that explaining a thing makes it go away somehow, or relegates it to the World of Solved Things. I might know that having a crush entails a state of unbalanced serotonin release and intense dopaminergic activity associated with the focus of my affection, but that doesn't mean that I can get over the person any more easily. I think Sonia and I wrote papers on that very example freshman year, come to think of it ...

But, yes, it gets under my skin when people think that once we find a scientific explanation for a thing, that makes the thing somehow less than it was before - less worthy of respect, or awe, or even just attention and practical care. It's hard for me to remember, when I see incredulous news articles with headlines like "Scientists Find Some Emotion In the Brain - OMG Is That Where It Happens?!", that most people don't take ( ... )

Yes, we did! And I use the knowledge I gleaned from studying it to be able to deal with my own emotions in a healthier way. For example, using my knowledge that being in love results in low serotonin and spikes of dopamine, I have gotten better at forcing myself to get out and do good things like exercise and see friends when heartbroken rather than sit inside and mope or eat ice cream (neither of which will raise serotonin levels).

Same here - I read an article called "Love, desire, and the suppression of thoughts of romantic alternatives" that was the catalyst for a much-needed breakup! I've also been reading about mindful meditation lately (and thinking about changing my thesis to study conscious emotional regulation), which is proving to be a useful thing to remember. I'm getting back to my roots here!

Er, where do you get the idea that science would consider emotions irrelevant? Science lends great, great weight to emotions. Science explains to us the huge extent to which they matter.

To be fair, though, that wasn't the case a few decades ago - at least not in many areas of science and psychology. Thus the market for books like Descartes' Error. I mean, just look at Econ! They're only now catching on. And, separate from whether people use science to study a thing is the question of what people do with that information - you know, your schmaltzy paragraph about the bird taking flight?