Aschwanden writes: “Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. … [O]bjective knowledge is not...

Aschwanden writes: “Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. … [O]bjective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. … What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently” (par. 19).

What assumptions about the value of “more data” and “more or better science” are being challenged in this quotation?

Why are “hidden values” and “transparency” important if the goal is “any sort of meaningful consensus” (par. 19)? What might meaningful consensus look like? Does Ashwanden provide any examples?