September 18, 2025
One main argument is:
Exercise of power involves someone else motivating us with reasons to do or think something else.
The reasons given to use greater enforcement powers involve claims:
Some of these reasons are empirical claims; some are normative claims
Scientific Evidence can only be used with empirical claims:
When we are given reasons to do something (e.g. accept the use of police powers to target political rivals)
involve value judgments. But they also involve empirical claims.
If the evidence we are given to accept power over us would always support the claims, even if the claims are false, we are not free. Bad evidence \(\to\) Bad reasons
Claims that there is a “problem” involve a value judgment and descriptive claims
Evaluating descriptive claims are relevant to “diagnostic frames”:
Where can evidence for descriptive claims go wrong?
An attempt to motivate people to behave differently. An attempt to exercise power. Access to media outlets enables power.
\(\checkmark\) if science could test:
US is not experiencing high levels of immigration \(\checkmark\)
High immigration rates do not lead to political instability \(\checkmark\)
New immigrants are employed at high rates \(\checkmark\)
Lower immigration slows economic growth \(\checkmark\)
America should admit 1 million more immigrants per year
are normative claims that assert what kinds of actions should be taken
The basis for a prescriptive claim includes
This is a prescriptive claim:
For it to be true…
What value judgments must we assume to be true?
What empirical claims must be true?
“America should admit 1 million more immigrants per year”
scientific evidence cannot “prove” this claim
even if we evidence that is very capable of finding any flaws in claim that increasing immigration increases economic growth… (strong severity)
people who value cultural/ethnic homogeneity more than economic growth can’t be persuaded
You and your friends win a large sum of money in a lottery
You and your friends agree: you want to do the most good by donating the money.
You consider some options…
Which should you donate to?
Peter Singer and effective altruists say yes!
“Saving a child’s life has to be better than fulfilling a child’s wish to be Batkid.”
But wait, your friend says: experiments show that directly giving cash
If you value minimizing suffering, but your friend values maximizing individual freedom…
then science cannot help us, because the disagreement is rooted in value judgements
“We should donate money for mosquito nets” is a prescriptive claim.
Need to accept the causal (empirical) claim that \(A \to B\) AND a value judgment that \(B\) is good.
Science is still be helpful!
Where can evidence for causal claims go wrong?
Learning to recognize what evidence is capable of proving claims wrong: