Mr. Harris.
As you have eloquently presented a moral science, developed by fact based rational thinking, seem to offer the best hopes that humanity may have to “flourish”.  I also see many peeks of moral landscape possible. 
If you were to succeed in establishing scientifically the mapping of a moral landscape, it would not be accessible to the many needed to implement it with any consequence. To re-conduct your example about the string theory, the theory is there, it is credible and accessible for reading to anyone, but it is in fact, from its very complexity, less accessible and more secret to most humans than the making of an H bomb. It is not a problem with the string theory since it is of little immediate relevance to our daily lives.  Such is not the case with morality.
This being said, I also see that, even if the mapping of said peeks is achieved, to apply the mapping result to one’s life, an individual would have either to climb to its peek (intellectually) or to accept results from someone declared competent in moral science. In practice and as you know, humanity is composed in majority of individual with rather low levels of interest, which could not or would not want to climb those peeks, Any moral science theory, applied to humans, would probably be complex and consequently would not be understood by most. Consequently they would defer to human specialists or accepted human authorities, spread and sitting on a few peek, most convinced that his particular peek is the highest (new kind of priests, mullahs, rabis, etc…).  And we are back to square one (maybe).
Still, it is interesting, the only hope I see to reach square two.

# posted on March 29, 2010 report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Why should I listen to you?

You say I have theories…

and I say you have theories.

I am a Christian.

You believe we came from a big bang with no Creator.

one of us is right.

It just happens if Jesus is right and you are wrong, then you are wrong and Jesus is right.

# posted on November 14, 2010 report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

At Francois-Xavier Demers
I think there are some simple truths that could help.
If we start with building blocks of truth ,as you add and it makes sense you will have most peoples understanding , where it gets complicated is when people are expected to make so many exceptions(away from said truth) , that said (understanding ) is unstable. You then have people having to fill in gaps with ( any old stuff that fits). You then don’t have engaged , trusting attention , but confusion , that overflows into the kind of difficulty we see people having every day.  For this you may have to evolve any and all system"s that are unstable . Example you could start with the Inglish dictionary . Or pragmatically work out what the most conflicting areas of life and our understanding are . People are clever , given the chance to be , we have a massive program of dumbing down going on . what do you think?

# posted on November 22, 2010 report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.