My problem with Harris' argument was that it was speculative in a way science, almost by definition, can't be. He doesn't say science can provide answers now, b

My problem with Harris' argument was that it was speculative in a way science, almost by definition, can't be. He doesn't say science can provide answers now, but it will in the future. However this latter proposition runs counter to what we know about the trajectory of science via Feyerabend and Kuhn, who are more Harris' opponents than Hume, though even his response to Hume on the is/ought distinction is disturbingly dismissive.