In fact, I've noticed that throughout my life my initial reaction on reading something that contradicts my previous beliefs is not rejection but extreme interest at the possibility I may have been wrong.
I don't know if that makes me very skeptical or very gullible. I think it's the former.
I'm happy if someone finds a way to make my code better, because I can now easily improve it and hopefully learn from my mistake. I don't place much self-worth in the code I write; I care more about the end result of what I'm trying to create.
Based on it, I wouldn't install a fireplace in a new home, but I think I'd still like to sit by one once or twice a year. I think my lungs can take it.
Specifically that science can quatify the morality of various actions and doings. This is what his last book is all about, "The Moral Landscape". He talks about it here on a TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_...
A lot of people are unconvinced, but he's definitely the guy to be making these arguments, considering he got his PhD in neuroscience.
This is not the work of somebody trying to find the truth, or help others come to it.
"Oh but if we can't directly link this specific cancer with a specific fire, then burning wood isn't harmful, it's all luck, and we can carry on with it without guilt".
Is how your reply reads.
Now, if you made a similar case for computers, I would be in a different spot.
Or that's my kids' opinion. Very weird.