3 ms·

There is no empirical evidence that can "validate" a normative claim, except to the extent that such claims rely on empirical priors. You can't squeeze an "ough

There is no empirical evidence that can "validate" a normative claim, except to the extent that such claims rely on empirical priors. You can't squeeze an "ought" from an "is," literally by definition. The response "this normative opinion is not falsifiable" is just confused—it's like saying "this empirical observation is not good."

a4isms 6y ago
I did not read the OP as making normative claims, I read the OP as making claims about things that quite possibly could be measured, provided the author stoped waving his hands and was specific. For example, the opening two sentences: I try to write using ordinary words and simple sentences. ... That kind of writing is easier to read, and the easier something is to read, the more deeply readers will engage with it. This is a claim suggesting a cause-and-effect relationship between a certain type of writing and a certain behaviour on the part of people who read the article. My feeling is that this claim could be falsifiable, provided the OP got specific about what "ordinary words" are, what "simple sentences" are, and what kind of "engagement" we wish to measure. If he did so, the claim would be falsifiable. And in truth, I'm not going to say that if he did get precise, it would still not be falsifiable. Experience tells me that yes, we can identify cause-and-effect relationships between empirically measurable characteristics of prose and precise engagement metrics. That is exactly the kind of thing that people do when they try to manufacture "clickbait" headlines. But he chose to make these claims without being specific, and to me this is what makes it non-falsifiable, but not normative. JM2C.
- nine_k 6y ago
  Look, the entire original post of pg's is about 2 KB. You are suggesting to write a proper paper, backed by proper research. A paper would of course be useful. But it won't replace the short blurb, which communicates an idea in 2-3 minutes of reading.

a4isms 6y ago

I did not read the OP as making normative claims, I read the OP as making claims about things that quite possibly could be measured, provided the author stoped waving his hands and was specific. For example, the opening two sentences: I try to write using ordinary words and simple sentences. ... That kind of writing is easier to read, and the easier something is to read, the more deeply readers will engage with it. This is a claim suggesting a cause-and-effect relationship between a certain type of writing and a certain behaviour on the part of people who read the article. My feeling is that this claim could be falsifiable, provided the OP got specific about what "ordinary words" are, what "simple sentences" are, and what kind of "engagement" we wish to measure. If he did so, the claim would be falsifiable. And in truth, I'm not going to say that if he did get precise, it would still not be falsifiable. Experience tells me that yes, we can identify cause-and-effect relationships between empirically measurable characteristics of prose and precise engagement metrics. That is exactly the kind of thing that people do when they try to manufacture "clickbait" headlines. But he chose to make these claims without being specific, and to me this is what makes it non-falsifiable, but not normative. JM2C.

nine_k 6y ago
Look, the entire original post of pg's is about 2 KB. You are suggesting to write a proper paper, backed by proper research. A paper would of course be useful. But it won't replace the short blurb, which communicates an idea in 2-3 minutes of reading.