And yet, that's not logically possible, as it's circular reasoning.

You basically take a principle of faith (e.g. regarding induction), and you combine it with an empirical method.

If you define "right" and "wrong" as "true" and "false" then you can understand them via science.

There's nothing "true" and "false" about not defauding you/killing you/treating you like shit you if I'm to benefit from it.

Scientifically speaking it's just a cost/benefit calculation (e.g. whether I'd get caught or not).

Many people go for just that. We call them sociopaths. If we all started doing just that (and ignored moral principles), society would be chaos.

Science can't replace morallity, except in trivial cases.

Even if science says "it is true that society would be better if everybody did X" (e.g. didn't do X bad thing) that's still not enough of a basis for a morality.

Because for science it is also true individually that "If you can do X and know you wont have any negative backslash on you particularly, you can benefit from it".

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

* https://blog.apaonline.org/2018/01/25/the-problem-with-scien...