Sam Harris and "scientism"

[2xx1xy1JD]

Here's a good article giving an overview of Sam Harris' claim that science and scientists should define morality - and the problems with that argument:

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/0 ... tism/?_r=0

Here's the key part that I would echo:

If you know what moral ends you’re driving at, then clearly science can be of assistance in your quest; the idea that the two spheres of inquiry never overlap is obscurantist and silly. But he would be much more persuasive on that narrower point if gave up on the broader one, and reconciled himself to the fact that his style of utilitarianism is not the self-evident and scientific foundation for all sensible moral inquiry that he believes it to be.

I'm not anti-science, at all. It should be studied, and it's a valuable tool.

I do, however, have some serious issues with the idea that scientists should DEFINE morality and values.

Science can do a great job of assisting with practical questions. If you value life, science can help us learn ways to save lives. If you want to teach young children lasting lessons, child psychology can show how some methods are far superior to punishment.

That said, are scientists experts on morality and values? Are they uniquely qualified to determine what is right and wrong?

Let's look at an issue like human experimentation.

Is it science that tells us that Dr. Mengele's human experiments at Auschwitz were immoral - or is it a basic sense of humanity?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Meng ... imentation

What about the US government using African-American men as human guinea pigs for syphillis during the Tuskegee Experiment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_s ... experiment

Or the Canadian government using aboriginal children as human guinea pigs for malnutrition?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... e13246564/