Aschwanden writes that “these controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like...

Aschwanden writes that “these controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence” (par. 21). Do you think that some readers would find this attention to practice compelling while others would not? If so, why or why not? Can you imagine readers being turned off by her description of “cherry-picking evidence?”