Quiz I practice

No unread replies.No replies.

There are a number of statements at the bottom of these instructions and tips for practice with your groups outside of class.

The following are the instructions for Quiz 1.

Put each of the following sentences into the most likely category, from among five types of statements (factual (F), causal (C), interpretive (I), normative (N), or “none of the above” (X).

Normative (N): Remember if there is any element of normative bias in the statement, then it is normative (e.g. “Discrimination causes harm” is normative instead of causal because harm is too subjective). If the statement reveals the values of the author, then it is normative. Because we are so used to lazy speaking and listening, we often believe the statement is revealing values when it is not: “The death penalty does not violate the cruel and unusual standard because even though it is cruel, it is not unusual” seems to be spoken by a death penalty opponent but the person is just interpreting the word, “and.” Evidence for a careful normative argument can be the foundational first principles: “Suffering is bad and therefore we should not eat animals.” Normative arguments can also rely on causal arguments: “Political stability is important because it causes economic growth.”

Interpretive (N): People can interpret things in certain ways that may emanate from their biases, but nonetheless is an interpretation (e.g. “The bible would disallow the death penalty” might seem normative but the writer of the sentence is just interpreting the meaning behind the word, “kill” in the ten commandments. A statement can refer to a text but it could be normative: “The bible is the best book of all time” is normative. Or the statement could be causal: “The more a person reads the bible, the less likely they are to get divorced” is a causal statement. Or it could be factual: “there are ten commandments mentioned in the bible” is a fact. Evidence for interpretation arguments is found in the text, only, and in the meaning of the words.

Factual (F): Factual statements may not be true; what is important is verifiability. The difference between empirical statements and causal statements is that empirical statements are verifiable events. They are either 100% true or 100% false. At times, the difference between the two will be a judgment call based on how much agreement there is likely to be about the statement. If there is absolute widespread agreement, it is a fact and therefore an empirical statement. “Booth killed Lincoln in the theater” is a fact. You could also say that Booth’s gun caused Lincoln’s death and this would be an empirical statement despite the word “cause” in the sentence.

Causal (C) statements would require going out into the world and testing whether something causes something else through many observations over many units: usually, people, places or time. Causal statements can lead to hypothesis tests. “The conservatism of the public opinion increases the likelihood of conservative Supreme court opinions” is a causal statement where we could go out and get measures of public opinion and Supreme Court outcomes and see whether there is a correspondence. This would be causal. I would not get distracted by notions that the phenomena that are causally connected would be difficult to measure. If you can imagine an intersubjective (value free – something that doesn’t depend on whether someone is liberal or conservative) measurement of the two things that cause each other, then you can call it causal. If there is no way to measure the variation across units, then it is not this kind of causal statement. It might be a causal process: “Speeding caused that accident” is about one accident and therefore, it cannot lead to a hypothesis test. “Speeding causes accidents” can lead to a hypothesis test. The only kind of evidence for causal arguments are hypothesis tests.

No category, (X): Declarations do not fit into the above: “I am mad and will not take it anymore” is a declaration. Interpretations of events: “Trump’s election means that the U.S. is no longer the example of freedom in the world.” Causal processes are also not in a category.

People often talk about facts versus opinions. Normative, causal and interpretation statements are opinions; they are arguments. Facts are not better than opinions. Opinions can be dumb and still fit into their particular category. For example, “Nicholas Cage movie appearances causes deaths by drowning” is a dumb argument. But it is still causal. And those things are related, believe it or not:

Some more study guides

Causal versus normative

If there is any element of normative in the sentence, it is normative.

Here is what I mean:

If it says poverty causes people not to graduate from high school, this is causal because we can measure poverty and we can measure graduation rates. The person might be complaining about poverty, but this element requires statistical data, so if they do not provide evidence of that – cite no sources, etc., then there is a problem with their argument.

If it says it is too bad people don’t graduate from high school, then it is normative.

If it says bad moral values causes people not to graduate from high school, this is normative because moral values are subjective. If a person says that, then they are likely to give you a story about their moral values. Anything that implies something that is impossible to measure is causing or being caused by something else, like “harm,” “immorality,” “decent,” “good,” bad, etc. is normative.

Stupid causal arguments that you do not believe are still causal, as the same with other arguments. If they imply causality and you don’t believe it, then, this doesn’t undermine the intent of causality.

The intent of a causal argument might be X causes Y, but only in certain contexts, then this is still causal.

If something is too much of something, this is also normative.

If someone says, harm will increase at a specific time, this is not a statement. When the Minneapolis police union chief says X, this causes parents who have lost a child to feel sad, this is a specific thing. If someone says that

Interpretation

Generally, interpretation statements refer to their text. But if they refer to a text, but quote it directly, then it is not and interpretation. Direct quotes are facts. Perfectly verifiable paraphrasing or summaries are facts. “The U.S. Constitution separated power into different branches” would be a fact about a text.

And again, it could be an interpretation that doesn’t mean that, like, the Bible tells us we should raise money for some political issue. You might disagree, but remember, all arguments might be ones that you are likely to disagree with at first – at least good ones.

Factual implies verifiability, but you do not have to verify them during the test. If they can be verified, like Trump said he wants to put Democrats in jail on Twitter this morning, then you do not have to check Twitter for that. But the fact that you could check Twitter for that and verify it, then it is factual, even if it is false.

If someone says, from what Trump says on Twitter, it can be interpreted that he is angry, this is X, not one of our statements, because inferring intention is not something I can teach you how to do.

If someone says, looking at Trump’s Twitter results overtime, it can be inferred that Trump wants to build a border wall, then this is so verifiable because he has said that directly, it doesn’t need to be interpreted. So, this would be a fact.

If someone said, Trump’s Twitter messages imply that he doesn’t follow the Republican platform, then this can be an interpretation, because it relies on looking up the text for its meaning in the platform. But if the platform says something that is verifiably different from the platform, then it can be considered a fact. But if it is a description, like the Republican platform is racist, then it is an X statement, not fitting into any category.

Making an argument about the internal consistency of two arguments are interpretations of the meaning behind two texts – even if they are stated, the fact that they can be transcribed makes it possibly an interpretation.

What to say about statements that interpret events as semantic expressions: e.g. “Parties are declining in importance.”

And as discussed in the types of statements people can make, interpretation of events as qualifying for a particular semantic expression, e.g. “If Trump wins, this is the end of the Republic.” But there is really not evidence that can be brought to bear that it fits a particular semantic expression. It entirely depends on the definition of “end” and “Republic.” This makes statements like these pretty difficult to be intersubjective.

This is why an interpretation of an event: applying a semantic expression to an event, is not one of the statements. If you see one like that on the quiz, you have to be sure to apply an X as it does not fit into the types of statements we have talked about.

It is like calling an incident racist. There is no common way of defining racism, so it is not a statement in which evidence can be brought to bear. Some people do it - and obviously rants like this do it - but statistical evidence is not what can be used to provide evidence for that. Now, some things are more racist than others. But racism used like this is a false dichotomy, and usually ad hominem as well. Well, you said X “racist” thing, so therefore, you have no right to have a valid opinion about everything.

I define racism as the lack of empathy for strangers of another race. Others describe it as influence resentment: the resentment that comes from other races becoming more powerful. Still others describe it as absolute expressions of white supremacy, while others imply racist when a person has unconscious biases. (We all do). And when the KKK believes that it is not a racist organization, then we learn racism has no common definition. It is an insult. Now that doesn’t mean that it is an illegitimate exercise: to wonder what kinds of things qualify as racist. But clear cut evidence is difficult as it also requires an agreement about semantics, in addition to an analysis of the event or expression.

What to say about arguments that you do not intend to make

Be careful when making your own arguments, such as "blah is more (less) than the past,” or “it is too bad that people engage in logical fallacies,” when you are not intending to provide support for that argument. First, if you say, logical fallacies are getting worse, then you need to provide evidence for this – and there is no data on that subject – and you do not intend to provide that data. So, don’t say it. Don’t say anything – not in a college essay unless you intend to provide support for that argument.

That is part of what I am trying to nail down in this section of the class: make your argument specific, and make your evidence consistent with that argument. If you are going to argue “it is too bad, blah, about logical fallacies,” then you need to realize that you need to identify a first principle and then carefully nail down exactly what you are proposing.

When seeming logical fallacies are actually not: because they do what the author says they intend to do

If an author says, “I am going to show the Trump is a jerk” and then they do so, it is not a logical fallacy. What some of you have noticed is your desire to hear policy alternatives and are frustrated when politicians don’t do this. If they say they are going to evaluate policy alternatives, and instead engage in ad hominem attacks, then it is a logical fallacy. The problem is that you want them to make a different argument than what they are making, not that they are necessarily engaged in a logical fallacy.

The angrier people are, the more they participate in politics.
The right to privacy can be deduced from the underlying logic of the other rights and liberties protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The Supreme Court has allowed too many criminals to go free.
When people put an emphasis on the relational aspect of their identity, they are more likely to accept disagreeable political outcomes than people who put an emphasis on their material identity.
The founders of this country put quite a lot of thought into the Bill of Rights; therefore, we should not include other rights
When people have higher levels of political efficacy they are more likely to vote because when people feel as though they can make a difference, they are often more likely to engage in politics.
We need to punish Assad for using chemical weapons in some way; I wish we could think of a nonmilitary way to punish him.
The reason Texas doesn’t float off into the Gulf of Mexico is because Oklahoma sucks.
The Federalist papers show that the founders of the U.S. cared about causal inferences from history; therefore, they would want the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution as a living document, drawing upon their understanding of which institutions prevent what they consider bad outcomes.
Democracy is the worst political system, except for all the others.
Police have to knock first before entering because of the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights were never meant to restrict the states; therefore, we can infer that the founders were willing to accept oppression of religious minorities at the state level.
People who continue to torture Oklahomans needlessly with their dumb jokes need to give it a rest.
It looks like it should rain during the movie but not before or after so we don’t need our umbrellas.
People ought to study if they want to get a good grade.
The best way to study for the exam is to get together in study teams and create some practice exam questions.
It seems like one thing people forget when they characterize a generation is that there are other causes of a person’s attitudes and behaviors besides the year of their birth.
Millennials’ views of global warming are more important since they are going to suffer the worst from its effect.
Teaching students that science is a compilation of facts to be memorized is at least partly to blame for the belief that if there is any doubt about something, it is not science.
Students who were taught that uncertainty is a part of scientific inquiry are more likely to be able to think of alternative explanations when presented with a correlation.
Scientific knowledge is decreasing; therefore, we should focus on creating more knowledge.
Boys are better at physics because they can watch themselves pee, so they understand projectiles better. (no, I did not make this one up, sadly; it is an actual serious research paper). What would it take, by the way to test this causal mechanism?
People with personality disorders are more likely to steal.
People who believe in stupid things tend to vote stupidly.
People who were spanked growing up are more likely to support Trump. (is this causal or do you think being spanked is correlated with things that might be correlated with supporting Trump? What else could it be? Could this be part of a normative rant – could that rant be either pro or anti-Trump? )
People who watch Cosmos are more likely to be interested in science. (Why might this be the case, do you think?)
People who traveled as a child are more likely to go to college. (why might this be the case?)
Since people who travel were more likely to get educated, travel is a good thing.
Trump supporters are less knowledgeable about science.