Eventually, if science can tell us enough about rationality, there's no reason we can't understand the best form of it.

But you original claim was::

to get out of the is-ought bind all you have to do is specify a goal or desire you have.

You then switched to

perfectly informed and perfectly rational

and then switched again to gradual improvement.

In any case, it sill improving instrimental ratioanility is supposed to do anything at all with regard to ethics.

I'm a Moral Anti-Realist (probably something close to a PMR, a la Luke) so the is-ought problem reduces to either what you've been calling 'instrumental meaning' or to what I'll call 'terminal meaning', as in terminal values.

So? You claim was that there science can solve the is-ought problem. Are you claiming that there is scientific proof of MAR?

There's nothing more to it. If you think there is, prove it.

I have.

But the problem here is your claim that sceince can sol ve the is-ought gap was put forward against the argument that philosophy still has a job to do in discussing "ought" issues. As it turns out, far from proving philosophy to be redundant, you are actually relyig on it (albeit in a surreptittious and unargued way).

Yes, like I've said. When your beliefs about the world are wrong, or your beliefs about how best to achieve your desires are wrong, or your beliefs about your values are misinformed or unreflective, then the resulting 'ought' will be wrong

None of that has anything to do with ethics. You seem to have a blind spot about the subject.