Practice quiz: Identify the underlying logic of the statement

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