I believe it was originally down-voted for making the assumption that science could solve politics (we&#x27;re talking opinions, not facts, so you cannot rigourously apply the scientific method).<p>The comment also fell for the trap of falsely equating opposition with conflict.<p>As a thought experiment, take the issue of abortion. GP is telling me that certainly either &quot;Abortions should be allowed because of the mother&#x27;s rights&quot; or &quot;Abortions should not be allowed because of the unborn child&#x27;s rights&quot; is WRONG. Tell me how anyone could possibly create an &quot;experiment&quot; which would result in a meaningful answer. How would you measure the morality and goodness of the event in a way that everyone could agree upon? Do you see the problem?