I enjoyed the "debate" below. Other than Harris, seems like the conclusion is that science is a foundation for helping to determine moral values, but that morality isn't a science. Maybe if we could map everyone's brain into a supercomputer and run endless experiments to determine peak "thriving" - whatever that would mean to everyone, then maybe it could be a science. Maybe economics of morality will be as close as we can get?

 

 

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/the-great-debate

comparing apples to oranges.

so can apples and oranges not be compared?

perhaps if you make a diagram involving 2 circles that overlap with the traits on apples on one circle and oranges in the other and the similarities in the center?

FACT: the earth is under what we would call gravitational forces.

Nobody would feel awful about giving up gravity,

that would mean that said babe does not exist as there would be no atmosphere for it to breathe.

but IMHO to end this debate someone will have to prove that right and wrong exist outside of personal opinions that in many cases are shared.

And even if they can morality is not the "study of" anything it is the "idea of" so it can't be a science

We might ask, what is science? My dictionary says science is systematized knowledge derived from observation. In the beginning science was not broken into several different fields of study. Democracy is the result of using science to determine morality.