It's important to embrace the scientific process and the truths that it creates. It's also important to understand that science isn't the only path to truth and that although science falls under the umbrella of reason, science and reason aren't synonyms. Sound logic can lead to truths that are every bit as important as scientific facts. Scientism has led millions of people to blindly and passionately believe in ideas that are patently absurd.
Part of it must be strategic because it's the only way that people can still convince themselves that moral relativism is true. I can't scientifically prove that relativism is untrue because ethics aren't strictly, objectively observable.
Nonetheless, an idea can't be true if you must contradict it in order to argue for it. Yes, it's difficult for me to argue that there are moral truths and falsehoods in a vacuum; but, the relativists prove the existence of moral truths by trying to argue against the existence of moral truths. In order to argue that a vision of objective moral truths a relativist has to make an argument that relativism is true and that objectivism is false. Relativism is at best the logical and moral equivalent of mutually assured destruction - the relativists push the red button to try to destroy people like me and, in the process, bring destruction upon themselves. When relativists are called upon to discuss foundations of ethical systems, relativism crumbles because in order to refute any and all other ethical systems, they have to make declarations that those other ethical systems are wrong.
One of the worst arguments that relativists make is the perspective that systems of belief in objective moral values are a form of colonialism. Okay, even if that were true, the implication that colonialism is bad is an argument against relativism.
Relativism tends to gain credibility and a certain charm in certain specifics. There's no doubt that there are moral questions with more than one plausible answer. Blackstone's ratio is a statement of value, "It's better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be condemned." I absolutely believe that statement to be true - the way that hoards of mouth breathers responded to Kyle Rittenhouse seems to put me in the minority. But, if there's anything that science can teach us here, it's that disagreement doesn't mean that the truth isn't out there.
What's more is the simple fact that I would dare anybody to find a moral relativist who actually behaves as if morality is all relative. In fact, I find arguments about several specific moral questions to be the unveiling of how reprehensible relativistic arguments are. Self-proclaimed relativists tend to be mealy-mouthed about FGM or child brides in other cultures. A consultant to the Obama administration, when asked by Sam Harris what she would think of a culture that removes the eyeballs of every third child due to a religious doctrine that says, "Every third shall walk in darkness." replied that you could never say that that's wrong.
They're mealy-mouthed about these questions with other people; but, accuse the same person of being a child molester and see how the person responds. Even if we lived in a world where a person accused of that crime would face no legal punishment, that person would still protest the accusation. That person wouldn't just be protesting because he or she regards his or her personal truth to be that child molestation is wrong. That person would likely be passionate to see another accused person be brought to justice.
The moment you get off the couch to march for a cause, you're showing that you don't believe that morals and cultures are different but equal. Even if you're sitting on the couch voicing an opinion about how our world or our culture can be better or calling for some new law, you're not behaving in a way that shows that you believe your own relativistic rhetoric.