(Return to main path)

So, in some cases, when we say that X is irrelevant to Y, we aren't stating a scientific fact. We may be making a moral judgment about how we should proceed. For example, we may be saying that X ought not to be considered when we are deciding Y. That would account for some of the passion that surrounds some questions about race or gender or sexual orientation.

I can agree with that; but I also agree at least partially with what Ann was saying. Whether X is relevant to Y may not be a scientific question, but there may be scientific findings that are very useful when arguing for or against the relevant of X.

For example, I have always been opposed to gays in the military and women in combat. My main argument rests on what I think are factual findings. In the one case, I think that openly allowing gays in the military will reduce group morale and solidarity. In the other case, I believe that the vast majority of women would simply not be as effective as men in combat.

Now I agree that my argument rests in part on these factual claims. If these claims can be shown to be false, then my argument collapses. So science has an important role, even if it doesn't prove relevance.