The Fact -> Value distinction
Science can describe love as a pattern in the brain. Love can be linked to value if you want to say people typically value what they love. Science describes only the neuroscience in terms of what the pattern is in the brain. Science never can explain what love feels like to people, or why love is important for people, or why people should value what they love, or how to deal with emotions in general.
Try fear? Science cannot tell you when to fear, what to fear, etc. Mathematics can tell you the level of risk but science isn't mathematics. Science simply generates new knowledge and while this is very useful for people who are trying to use mathematics to do ethics, it's never going to do anything more than provide knowledge to an equation. Science basically generates all the facts but none of the values nor will it tell you how to calculate the next move.
So much of what people talk about in terms of the human condition is subjective and nebulous simply because, today, we don't have a hyper-accurate understanding of the human brain, emotional responses, pain, pleasure, etc. If (and in my opinion, when) we have that level of knowledge, it will greatly change how we approach these problems. It will be more like a laboratory setting where we can test "if I increase X and decrease Y within the cultural setting Z, do these brain levels change this way without causing other unintended consequences?"
If all human brains could be scanned you still cannot use science to prove that these are anything more than brain patterns. Brain patterns have no inherent value from science. Brain patterns have value from philosophy. Love has value from philosophy. Science doesn't give value to anything and merely is a fact generation machine.
To many that's science fiction, but I don't think it's all that far off. Understanding "what we value" and why is squarely in the domain of science (IMO) because those things happen in the physical medium of our brain which we're currently quite ignorant about due to its incredible complexity. As science progresses, we'll know more which will change this discussion significantly.
But it's still not science. Science is specific in it's definition. You can read the brain 100% and it still doesn't prove scientifically that consciousness is real or fake, or that sentience is real or fake, or that sentience is even important. Science cannot measure human experience and ultimately we are stuck with philosophy for giving value (any value to anything), because science technically speaking has nothing to describe why a human life is of any value to the universe or answer questions of value at all.
All questions of value are subjective based on what some thinker, some "sentience", some person with "qualia", with preferences, is giving value to. Preferences result from qualia, from your ability to experience your existence subjectively. This is something science cannot explain, describe, or even prove. So you have no science of consciousness, or science of the Luke Stokes experience, because some questions or some things simply aren't provable or knowable with certainty.
Morality ultimately is about values. It's not about brain scans which merely tracks patterns in the brain associated with certain emotions or thoughts. Science gives us new knowledge and with it sometimes we can update what we value but it's not what determines whether or not you love yourself, love your family, or believe in your own sentience. Those topics are philosophy.
Wittgenstein might say we're just discussing what words really mean here.
Evolution is science, yes? Can't science make claims about why we "feel" or "love" from an evolutionary framework? My hunch is this leads to a much larger discussion about free will and whether or not it actually exists. Words we create like consciousness, feelings, emotions, awareness, agency, etc... they may all just be an illusion we created for ourselves to explain our experience in ways that benefit the spread of our genes (not based on what "actually" is).
Ultimately, I think the false boundaries around science and philosophy aren't helpful as we need both working together. Without science and technology, philosophy would be so out of touch with reality (as we're best able to perceive it) as to be unhelpful and without philosophy to explore the (currently) unknown boundaries of knowledge within our conscious experiences, science would lead to things like eugenics which we later regret from a moral perspective.
I'll give that Wikipedia a read, thanks.
This isn't to say evolution doesn't have value but the point is there is no way which I can see to make testable predictions which are falsifiable based off the theory of evolution. Also when we discuss the theory of evolution there are many gaps in it, and then there is no single theory of evolution but more origin of life theories which are encompassed to an umbrella term "theory of evolution".
It includes concepts like panspermia which are interesting but hard to prove. Primordial soup is just an educated guess and really not much better than a creation myth. My point is sometimes its better to admit that we don't know something than to try to fill in the gaps with theories backed by science. Evolution is a theory which over time has become backed by some actual science but the theory itself is not science.
For example life science has taught us a lot about the behavior of cells (such as bacteria will develop resistance to antibiotics), and we have learned a lot of knowledge about chemistry and medicine. At the same time evolution while it does provide a suitable explanation, as it at least provides a plausible theory for how life evolved, or how species evolved, or how a common ancestor could branch out, and this is backed by observations, fossils, etc, it's not at all clear what life actually is, or how life originated.
Evolution explains how life evolves which is valuable in itself. Origin of life questions in my opinion cannot be answered. Primordial soup, panspermia, etc, are just explanation to help people feel better about the fact that no one knows. The Big Bang Theory is also a set of beliefs about the origin of the universe which cannot be tested, and which is in place to help people feel better about the fact that no one really knows.
Science can answer a lot of questions, provided us with the standard model, with experimental physics, with the laws of physics as we currently understand them, and none of this can tell us how the universe originated, or what life is. We can know how life evolves, we can trace all the fossils back to single cell organisms, and we can be confident that the process of evolution took place, and still have no clue as to the origin of life.
Now, if I'm wrong and there are some legit experiments which meet the standard of being falsifiable then I'd like to see it. As far as I know evolution is controversial to think of it as science.
References
I think you're confusing abiogenesis with evolution. Evolution is about the changes in species over time and it has great predictive power for both explaining the past and the future, as do many scientific theories (that's why they are called theories, a word scientists use differently than non-scientists). Other examples include the theory of gravity or germ theory.
I'm not sure how we got on the topic of origins of life when discussing Harris' views on the role of science in morality. For me, it's about predictive powers and science has them. Utilitarianism (or most any other framework for morality) eventually falls back on a system for maximizing wellbeing which is the same thing Harris is saying. If we care about predictive powers for figuring out what works best given that framework of maximizing wellbeing, the scientific method is the best tool we have so far because it gives us predictive powers. It doesn't give us "proofs" like math or logic.
Fair enough, the Theory of Evolution on Wikipedia seems to include abiogenesis and concepts of survival of the fittest. Certain parts of the theory aren't based in science. That doesn't mean other parts of it can't be tested, or aren't scientific. It's not like the Standard Model though where it's the most accurate description of reality we have, but more Evolution is useful because it's simply good enough.
I agree, science does have predictive powers. Science also gives us truth in a way where there is no certainty about anything. Morality is about logic, proof, mathematics, but not necessarily truth. It's very subjective and so there aren't universal laws or anything like that which science can deliver.
Not necessarily the case. First how would you define wellbeing? Then wellbeing for who exactly? The individual has a self interest so it could be good for them or not good for them. Then you have the species, where humans could seek wellbeing for the species but not other species, and so on. Ultimately it's subjective.
We could say wellbeing is simply to make all available brains "satisfied" but that is simply utilitarianism again. Utilitarianism has it's problems though because there are individuals and individuals might not want to live for the happiness of the group or the wellbeing of all brains on earth. Neuroscience is interesting, but it's not morality in my opinion and is more about self understanding.
The answers to these questions are why I appreciate the book the Moral Landscape. It's about comparing and contrasting experiences of conscious beings, even if we can't measure them exactly we can say "this is a peak" or "that's a valley" when compared together.
I wrote more and then deleted it because we just don't view science or truth similarly, and I don't see much point in quoting wikipedia pages to support my opinion at the moment. To me, science isn't about providing unchanging, universal truth, it's a framework for disproving a hypotheses in such a way that others can come to similar conclusions and confidently build on the results. It's always open to change and correction.
When did I say science is about unchanging truth? It's just the truth according to science, which really is the best measurement we have. So we agree on science if you go by the Wikipedia definition of science.
Where we disagree is on where science can be applied. I don't think it can be applied to ought questions, or why, or origin.
I don't view mental states in a way where we can answer questions of ought. Neuroscience shows us mental states but it doesn't in my opinion transfer into morality. I don't think morality can be reduced to mental states in practice. I think morality is a matter of what people value and sure with deep enough understanding of the mental states you might have a clue, but ultimately I think it's the individual who has to make some choice as to what to value and just reading mental states isn't the same as for instance written consent.
Can it be at some point? It depends on the accuracy of the brain to computer interface. But it still doesn't change that value is subjective. It would seem you are claiming that somehow we can have objective values or universally shared values and that is where ultimately we have disagreement, not in the definition of science because we can go with the same definition (yours) and I still wouldn't agree with your conclusion. It's narrowed down to whether or not values are subjective.
Yes you can have a morality based on consensus but we already have that. That isn't necessarily personal morality, but is more what society and public sentiment views as right and wrong. You could in theory connect all brains and have public sentiment decide what is right and wrong in real time but that is only one kind of morality and erases individual morality in favor of consensus morality.
I am very skeptical of any claim of moral authority. Including the claim that science can create the moral authority and determine what is best for everyone. Communists believed something similar about the government. Moral realism I think is incorrect and to accept your view as true I would have to believe in moral realism. Currently I think moral anti-realism is a better way. This doesn't mean there might not be an optimal decision a person can make in theory, or a best decision, as rational choice theory and or decision theory can show, but it simply means that no one else can determine it on your behalf unless they know your preferences and current values as they change in real time. An AI might be able to do this but it doesn't exist, and even if it did, it's the problem of "wellbeing" which again you don't define clearly in a way where everyone agrees. You can use polls but these are approximations.
References
Take the wellbeing approach, without a clear definition but lets say its based on mental states? Now assume an AI is in charge of all moral decisions. Is it going to be moral for humans to have individuality and free will if an AI can control everyone to guarantee with 100% certainty that the most moral decisions are made at all times?
There is no free will in science or individual in science.
Now if we take what Karl Popper said, that scientific knowledge is the search for "truth" not the search for "certainty", then what about the theory of evolution is objectively truth? Certain aspects of it are scientific, are areas where predictions can be made, can be falsifiable, such as the behavior of bacteria, the behavior of cells, etc, but not completely.
So we can say the behavior of cellular life is an area of life sciences. This knowledge could have been acquired without the full theory of evolution. The behavior of bacteria is predicted by the theory of evolution, so we can say that is a legit prediction, but the topic of "origin of life" isn't science, can't make predictions and is just speculation. If we removed all the "origin of life" parts from the theory of evolution then some parts of it are scientific and useful. Origin of life is entirely speculative and educated guessing, and primordial soup after 80 years now researchers are saying it's no longer the best guess.
There have been tests to try to recreate primordial soup which have all failed as far as I know. And just like with the big bang we don't have the ability to use science to explain certain things.
So the facts generated by science are the facts (behavior of bacteria, etc). The theory of evolution exists to try to explain the science in a coherent way. In my opinion the theory of evolution has gaps, holes, and in some cases best guesses like the origin of life, which take it away from being scientific. In a sense it tries to explain stuff which can't be tested as well as some stuff which can be, so while the behavior of bacteria can be tested the origin of life is a speculation (like the origin of the universe).
References
University of Kansas. (2017, September 13). Evolution of 'true frogs' defies long-held expectations of science. ScienceDaily. Retrieved September 18, 2017 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170913193106.htm
Web:
Finally to wrap this up, your quote:
To address your concern, what evidence is there that philosophy and science aren't already working together? Science supplies the facts while philosophy tells us what we should value. Philosophy and science have always worked together.
My opinion is only philosophy can explain the origin of life because philosophy provides explanations. Mathematics provides models. Science provides facts. So science is our fact generator where models are proven or disproven, where an explanation from philosophy can gain or lose credibility. The many worlds interpretation of quantum physics for example is a mathematical model but not science because it's not testable. String theory is a mathematical model but not science because it also isn't testable. Darwinism as far as I know isn't science, and the theory of evolution includes some processes which are testable, but some which are not testable or falsifiable but more just attempts at explanation, like the origin of life which I think is a mistake to try to use science there.
Whether the theory of evolution is science or not, it's extremely successful as a theory, very useful, and plausible. On the morality of eugenics, I don't think eugenics is immoral. What was immoral was how they tried to implement it. What was immoral was the complete disregard for individualism, human rights, consent, in favor of forced sterilization. Negative eugenics or coercive eugenics isn't wrong because designer babies are wrong or because intelligent selection is wrong, but it is wrong because a central state authority did eugenics without consent amorally.
If there is consent then nothing is immoral about two adults choosing to mate with each other to create what they perceive to be a master race. Nor is anything wrong with parents who genetically modify their offspring to cure diseases, promote athleticism, intelligence, or beauty. In fact under utilitarianism the case for eugenics is actually much stronger in favor of it being moral if done with consent.