Thank you for the clarification and my apologize for reading too much into your statements.
In any case, evaluating the claim of the moral landscape itself is more interesting than evaluating whether Harris is a scientist or not. I would love to hear your response to my post Can Science Demonstrate Racism or Genocide is Morally Wrong? - #49 by PdotdQ and @jongarvey’s post Can Science Demonstrate Racism or Genocide is Morally Wrong? - #58 by jongarvey in the original thread.
Note that
That science has a place in the discussion of morality is not new, and indeed is a trivial consequence once one adopts utilitarianism. This is also not the central claim of the moral landscape. The central claim of the moral landscape is that the is-ought gap can be bridged and that the entirety of the field of morality, including the axioms of morality (e.g. why pick utilitarianism over deontological ethics, and why one choose a particular utility function) can be obtained through science.