I admit that my chief concern is for civility, so how you get there, is up to you. One thing you might consider, though, is assuming good faith. If we both mean to reach a conclusion, and we're both open to looking at facts, then if one of us is truly "right," some combination of facts will probably get us there. At some point, we may find that we're talking past each other, in which case we stop, recognizing that our aims don't really have anything to do with each other. At some point, we may find that it's really some one value judgment -- and not a fact at all -- that separates us, in which case we respectfully agree to disagree. Or at some point, one of us may change his mind. In none of these instances is abuse a requirement.
The thing is, I don't think anyone here, with the possible exception of Ser Scot can say definitely that he or she has always been civil, and certainly I can't. It's just, in that moment, it was a bit of a buzzkill for participating in the thread, and I hoped that was not your intention, to make me stop.
But to the point, you keep using this expression, "philosophical hand-waving," but you realize that's all this thread can be about, right? Philosophy, one's philosophical approach. You use a dismissive, sneering term in contrast to your shining, concrete "real-world", but again, your examples are merely data. Your data can't tell me how to feel about the subject, it's numbers or words on a page, full stop. You then color those facts with your philosophical approach to the world, assigning value to the elements and telling a story. What is being pointed out is that there is not only one valid philosophy in the world, and those differences of philosophy will take the same facts, color them differently, and reach a different conclusion. What you call hand-waving, I call an attempt to introduce you to the concept of more than one valid point of view.
In any event, I've realized this morning that I have again spent several posts here in what is essentially a semantic argument. You have adopted your values in the absence of a religious doctrine, and you have correlated your values so strongly with your self-image as a scientist (by philosophy, if not by profession), that you will not hear of science being separated out of the equation. You have convinced yourself that science gave you your values, and that's totally fine. I really shouldn't bother trying to dissuade you, since our values and our conclusions, I think, largely align.
I just disagree with your definition of science. If you're interested in the semantics still, then let me just say this: no one can base their judgment on all of the facts, and weigh them all equally. Differences in weight are not suspensions of the scientific method, they are simply intrinsic to the existence of differing philosophies and points of view. Ignoring a fact does not make one un-scientific, because scientists ignore certain facts all the time, in order to reach their conclusions. They call these facts "outliers" or they say that the connection to why (x) happens has not yet been made, but they still draw inferences from the data that someone else, someone who believes those outliers must be more significant than that, will challenge. Who is more scientific? The answer is not absolute; it depends on what you value. Science will give us the data, but which data we choose to believe are important is not scientific, but personal.