Bob, here is an example of a paradigm issue and one of values issue to illustrate the difference I see. I would also say I am using the word paradigm in the sense Thomas Kuhn popularized, as a model, theory, or worldview. Are you familiar with the Structures of Scientific Revolutions? it's a very famous work from more than half a century ago. It bought the word into common use.
Paradigm: There are two fundamantal ways to view tyhe process of economic growth. The neoclassical approach is that investment leads to increased worker productivity which leads to GDP growth. The Keynesian approach is that (increased) demand leaders to GDP growth which leads to investment. One can call the first "supply-side" and the latter "demand-side".
In principle this is an empirical question and can be resolved using the methods of science. The facts are consistent with both models, however. Since no profits are made unless output is sold, demand and GDP rise in tandem. And it is an historical fact that rising GDP is highly correlated with rising capital over time. So, scientifically, there is no clearcut correct answer.
Now folks who believe the supply-side model would favor removing impediments to investment as the means to improve the economy. Therefore they support cutting taxes on the rich (the investor class), reducing regulations (impediments to productive investment) and in general reducing the scales of economic distorations that can lead to malinvestment (shrinking the size of government).
Conversely, demand-siders favor stimulating demand by (1) putting money into the hands of people who you know will spend it (jobs programs for the poor & working class) (2) actiively encouraging the development of new leadering sectors that create new categories of demand (industrial policy).
As you probably already have have seen, most folks in the first category fall into the red side while those in the second the blue. This issue should, in principle, be resolvable using facts and logic by the methods of science. It is not a values issue.
Values: There is a law currently being debated in California that would remove the religious exemption to anti-discrimination law. This issue is certain Christian schools do not hire people who are not Christians or who do not adhere to a Christian lifestyle (also not hired would be people actively committing serious sins like gay sex, although celebate gays would be welcome). Whether or not this law should be passed is not is not a scientific question. It cannot be resolved by appeals to facts and logic. It is a values issue. Such issues are resolved by force, either politically (e.g. elections/legislation, the courts) or through violence (e.g. US Civil War, ISIS).
Paradigm: There are two fundamantal ways to view tyhe process of economic growth. The neoclassical approach is that investment leads to increased worker productivity which leads to GDP growth. The Keynesian approach is that (increased) demand leaders to GDP growth which leads to investment. One can call the first "supply-side" and the latter "demand-side".
In principle this is an empirical question and can be resolved using the methods of science. The facts are consistent with both models, however. Since no profits are made unless output is sold, demand and GDP rise in tandem. And it is an historical fact that rising GDP is highly correlated with rising capital over time. So, scientifically, there is no clearcut correct answer.
Now folks who believe the supply-side model would favor removing impediments to investment as the means to improve the economy. Therefore they support cutting taxes on the rich (the investor class), reducing regulations (impediments to productive investment) and in general reducing the scales of economic distorations that can lead to malinvestment (shrinking the size of government).
Conversely, demand-siders favor stimulating demand by (1) putting money into the hands of people who you know will spend it (jobs programs for the poor & working class) (2) actiively encouraging the development of new leadering sectors that create new categories of demand (industrial policy).
As you probably already have have seen, most folks in the first category fall into the red side while those in the second the blue. This issue should, in principle, be resolvable using facts and logic by the methods of science. It is not a values issue.
Values: There is a law currently being debated in California that would remove the religious exemption to anti-discrimination law. This issue is certain Christian schools do not hire people who are not Christians or who do not adhere to a Christian lifestyle (also not hired would be people actively committing serious sins like gay sex, although celebate gays would be welcome). Whether or not this law should be passed is not is not a scientific question. It cannot be resolved by appeals to facts and logic. It is a values issue. Such issues are resolved by force, either politically (e.g. elections/legislation, the courts) or through violence (e.g. US Civil War, ISIS).