I kind of think it's dangerous for science to "inform" our ethical values in the ways you mentioned. For example, the scientific fact that Earth circles the Sun

I kind of think it's dangerous for science to "inform" our ethical values in the ways you mentioned. For example, the scientific fact that Earth circles the Sun shouldn't mean that we should also have a moral system that focuses on the Sun instead of focusing on Humanity. And the way math formulas work out shouldn't imply that we are somehow less important. Popular science is often quite ready to sweep problems that it does not have an explanation for under the metaphorical rug. We already know that materialistically pretty much everything is made of atoms, and our planet is just some random speck of stuff within a huge solar system within a huge galaxy... so it's tempting to conclude that we are some kind of "accident" that randomly happened. But science does not have an explanation of "consciousness" (or "qualia", or whatever you call it), and science is unready to explain questions like "why are we right here, right now?" besides "oh that's just pure coincidence". But does this time and place we live in have some greater cosmic significance? Are humans (and other lifeforms on Earth) truly unique despite there being so much matter out there? I submit that the answer is we honestly don't know, and because we don't know the answer to questions like these, making moral conclusions merely on the small fraction of questions we do have an answer for, seems to inevitably result in a flawed or at least incomplete conclusion. I mean, for all we know this universe could be an extremely realistic virtual simulation, and only after we pop out of it would we realize what it's all about. Admittedly if the simulation theory this is true and the simulation is watertight and has no backdoors, then it's impossible to know what's actually real or not. But that's kind of my point -- no amount of scientific knowledge should make us sure about a moral viewpoint (or perhaps anything at all). I mean it could definitely "inform" us, but more often than not people tend to feel more certain than they should because they perceive that somehow science is more "trustworthy".