I don't want to dive in and steer to an off-topic discussion, but that argument confuses descriptive statements with normative ones. You can gather knowledge about what you value, what other people value and use scientific reasoning to maximize your benefit based on this knowledge. Science helps you find out what you need to do to achieve a set goal. Which metrics (values) you use to measure benefit is outside the scope of science, and epistemology in general.
That is correct. We shifted the discussion a bit, but you are right in getting in back to track.
Regardless on how you arrive at or define values, what I am interested in is method by which you achieve your goals, however you did it. (we may come to that later on)
The scientific method provides the best of any method, because it has no assumptions, it does not require any supernatural belief in unprovable things such as the invisible hand or god(s), it is testable, verifiable, and changes accordingly to the evidence provided. It's a self correcting system.
On of the many proofs that others methods we used don't work just as well with societies at large, is that we have more than enough food for everybody. Such a disgraceful misallocations of resources is the result of economic and political activities, deciding what's best for their self-substantiation, and not for the people at large.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs?
Maslow's hierarchy of needs has been highly criticised, and rightly so, due to its hierarchal and scientifically outdated structure.
It is important that human needs are understood as a system - i.e. they are interrelated and interactive. In a system, there is no hierarchy of needs as postulated by Maslow, rather, simultaneity, complementarity and trade-offs are features of the process of needs satisfaction.
There are various models, such the Biopsychosocial, which provide a more solid basis for understanding human needs. One could argue that any of these models are incomplete. And they would be right, it's evolving and changing constantly. So what? Does that mean we can't use them?
jtimon, you are not making a rational and practical argument, but a mere abstract philosophical speculation. It's like saying: we don't have a complete theory of germs, that means we can't cure any disease. What nonsense.
Quote
If you get down to the science of it, we do everything to produce some types of neurotransmitters. Even eating is to achieve that "goal". You then end up with the brave new world.
Not in anything that resembles a serious scientific model, such as the Biopsychosocial.
And, in any case, whatever the goal, I am discussing the method, not the goal itself (for now).
What Sam Harris does isn't science, he's just presenting his own intuition, which happens to be politically correct (or contingent upon TEDgeist 
). I suggest you read Scott Atran's responses in detail (debate goes bottom to top), I'm sure you will see where scientific approach clashes with moral absolutism.
). I suggest you read Scott Atran's responses in detail (debate goes bottom to top), I'm sure you will see where scientific approach clashes with moral absolutism.Scott Atran is a very intelligent person, I saw his argument against Harris years ago at the Beyond Belief conference, here's a backup:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VWO6U6248c
However, it deals pretty much only with the comparison to religion, and the sole real line of argument is that he's not sure such a worldview would generate more happiness, compassion or peace, meaning that he agrees these are desirable conditions to strive for.
So far, I see no real argument against using science to maximise well being, as opposed to... what?