[vishaalk]

Thanks for your salient comment. I also reached the conclusion you did in your second paragraph.

Does this mean that most policy debates boil down to philosophical ones, trying to convince the other person to change their value(s)? First we must agree on a set of values, then we do research to find the best way of living by those values. We must sometimes acknowledge that these facts do not yet exist, and so we can't resolve our disagreement until that research is done.

I suppose if two people have the same value (e.g. immigrants have substantial moral worth), they can still disagree on how best to help them. If the data turns out that immigration makes everyone worse off, are we forced to bar them entry? It seems at odds with my moral compass, which leads to a muddled area of bending facts to appease moral codes. If you're available I would love to pick your thoughts on this.