There seems to be a bit of a sleight of hand going on here. The argument being made is mostly about what values people hold being facts. Usually when people mak

There seems to be a bit of a sleight of hand going on here. The argument being made is mostly about what values people hold being facts. Usually when people make a distinction between facts and values though they are not saying that what values people hold are not facts but rather that what values people should hold are not facts. Is vs ought. Obviously the author understands this distinction so I'm not sure why it seems to be ignored / glossed over here. You can make a case that what values ought to be is also connected to facts and I would tend to agree with that argument but it's not really the case that is being made here.