I don't have the book, so I don't think I'm eligible for the prize. Suffice to say that I've read his summary on "Response to Critics", and anybody who can't refute the tripe philosophy shown there (maybe he's got better in the book, I can't be sure) doesn't deserve to be considered anything more than a crap philosopher.
EDIT: Making criticisms as I go.
1- There is a fundamental difference between the question of science and the question of morality. Scientific inquiry percieves facts which are true and useful except for goals which run directly counter to science. Morality perceives 'facts' which are only useful to those who wish to follow a moral route.
2- Say I were a psycopath obsessed with exterminating all humanity for some reason. I do research on a weapon to do so using every principle of Science known about how to do it, testing hypotheses scientifically, making dry runs, having peer review through similiarly psycopath colleagues, etc etc. Although most people would be outraged, they probably wouldn't call it unscientific.
Harris could object that this is further from what most people associate science with. However, scientific research is associated with a lot of things- white coats for example. Why should morality be any better?
I might also point out that many projects seen in reality as scientific would be unscientific under Harris's definition.
3- As far as I can tell, Harris does not account for the well-being of animals. This is an ethical question his pseudo-philosophy cannot answer. It merely assumes humans are all that matters. He also cannot account for why all humans should be considered equal despite years of history showing humans usually don't consider them such.
4- Much human morality has little or no relationship to well-being. Say A murders B's entire family in cold blood. Not only B, but many others who witnessed the deed will have a moral desire for A to be punished independent of, and contrary to, human well being. Deterrent is nowhere in their brains.
On 1, I believe you're begging the question on the is-ought divide, which is the point of contention with Sam.
On 2, my recollection is that Sam basically excommunicates psychopaths from the human race. They don't count. In the end, I don't think that particularly helps him, as he'll have to excommunicate anyone who isn't a universalist altruist, and not just for humans, but for all conscious creatures.
On 3, I believe you're mistaken. The usual rubric Sam's utilitarianism goes by in the circles of Sam is WBCC, Well Being of Conscious Creatures. He grants th...
Sam Harris is here offering a substantial amount of money to anyone who can show a flaw in the philosophy of 'The Moral Landscape' in 1000 word or less, or at least the best attempt.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-moral-landscape-challenge1
Up to $20,000 is on offer, although that's only if you change his mind. Whilst we know that this is very difficult, note how few people offer large sums of money for the privelage of being disproven.
In case anyone does win, I will remind you that this site is created and maintained by people who work at MIRI and CFAR, which rely on outside donations, and with whom I am not affiliated.
Note: Is this misplaced in Discussion? I imagine that it could be easily overlooked in an open thread by the sorts of people who would be able to use this information well?