Here is the real problem with moral statements by scientists as scientists. The task of science is, roughly, explaining observation in reference to proximate ca

Here is the real problem with moral statements by scientists as scientists. The task of science is, roughly, explaining observation in reference to proximate causes and systematizing those causes as completely and minimally as possible. There is a divide between this task of explaining what is and proclaiming what should be. There is no way to make the leap with the tools of science (measuring, hypothesizing, testing, theorizing). Put another way, science does not have the meta makeup to look outside itself and say, "what is science good for?" So when scientists make moral claims as scientists, they are dressing up a lay moral opinion in their lab jacket. Like Freud talking about linguistics or economists talking about love, we should only trust them as far as the limits of their expertise. And we should recognize that when scientists say that science proves an ought, they are committing a category error.