Classify and then Debate

There was a time when plants were not usefully classified, and had a multiplicity of names in a multitude of countries, and even within a country such as England. It is only by classifying plants using a universally recognised method, that botanists and others have been able to work in an easily communicable way. Plants are not now classified by random fashion, but using taxonomic methods.
Similarly in dealing with the sciences in general, rational debate requires rational classification of the subjects. In a recent debate on this very subject it was suggested that the material sciences formed one area of thought, with everything else together in a general class of culture. Evidently political and ethical thought is a matter of culture as much or little as the kind of hats we wear or food we eat. This is unsupportable.
As a broad distinction, ethical-political values are universal, and those values are used in a universally definable way, placing societies in agreement or conflict with each other.
On the other hand, culture tends to be local and tribal or national, and innocuous. Anything that is not innocuous is by that definition a matter of ethics. There is today an increasingly globalised culture, and that in itself may be a matter of ethical concern because it stifles diversity.
[If people are allowed to walk the streets in all covering clothes, that hide identity or even sex, this provides aid and cover for assaults, undermining law and order]