Not every syllogism is correct nor insightful; but, some do manage to concisely convey some moral wisdom.
Having a certain reverence for science is great. I share that reverence for the most part; but, it does seem that since the unspecified virus of unknown origins hit, there's been a pandemic of scientism spreading throughout our culture.
It's cute that so many people are demanding that beliefs only be held if they're backed by evidence; but, most people who are constantly beating that drum only apply that standard to themselves selectively and they don't seem to flush out what they actually mean by "evidence."
There is a reason why science and math are different disciplines. They overlap quite a bit and it's hard to do most science without math; but, the evidentiary approach to science is different from math. Science is built more around observation of the natural world while math is about logic. There are different paths to knowledge and truth.
Okay, I believe that rapists should go to prison. What evidence do I have to back up that belief? I've never observed a rape myself. Even if I did, all I could say is that I observed harm being inflicted; but, what's my evidence that inflicting harm is bad? This comes back to values and logic. It doesn't mean that my belief that rapists should go to prison isn't right and that opposition to that belief isn't wrong. It means that this isn't a scientific issue.
We can't afford to trap ourselves in this back and forth or moral discussion which, on one end, demands scientific scrutiny for every value judgement, and on the other, accepts declarations of simple gut instincts. We need to embrace the fact that there are different approaches to knowledge.
If anybody sharing these memes about demanding hard evidence to support beliefs, literally none of them would be socialists. We have all the evidence in the world that centrally planned economies don't work if you define "work" in this context as "Facilitating human well-being." But, still, we have to agree that human well-being is a good thing. Maybe you think that equity is more important than well-being. Maybe I think that you're an idiot for thinking that.
Bottom line -- these memes are taking a pretty simple concept and flippantly over-simplifying it to the point that it makes no logical sense. It does actually appear that some of you people think that you're going to prove that rape is wrong by running an experiment in a lab. You're not. That's not how this works.
" Correct? Depends on what you mean by that, like whether it actually proves a point or is at least logically valid (i.e., not a nonsequitor). A thing can be logically valid, but metaphysically impossible. So "correct" is variable here.
This tone suggests that you have a pessimistic view of the influence of science, as if we don't have enough reasons to be pessimistic about the many worldviews and beliefs held by science denialists.
"Inflicting harm" on a conscious being is the very definition of "morally wrong" according to the propositions of objective morality and the science of morality. It is like asking "what is the evidence that my biological mother gave birth to me by any means?" It is redundant. Anyway, this can definitely be a scientific issue.
I understand that, but notice that you are assuming that empirical science is the only kind of science that exists. Don't forget that you started all this by also mentioning logic. From it we can derive a lot of reliable knowledge as well, and so we can make educated guesses as well. I also understand that this is complicated, and that we should not confuse a lot of things like facts, morality, epistemology, law, etc. When it comes to human affairs, then it gets complicated, but that doesn't mean that science has nothing to say.