Section 1 — The Nature of Belief 8 key phrases

Session 1 Key Phrases: Naming and distinguishing types of claims

Before you can argue well, you need to identify what kind of claim is on the table. These phrases help you distinguish beliefs, facts, opinions, and values — and signal that distinction to others.

That's an empirical claim.analytical phrase

Use when: identifying a statement that can be tested or verified against evidence

An "empirical claim" is one that is, in principle, testable — it asserts something about the world that evidence can confirm or refute. Using this phrase signals that you know the difference between what can be checked and what is a matter of judgment.

"Wait — that's an empirical claim. We don't have to argue about it; we can actually look up what the data shows."

That's a value judgment, not a fact.distinction phrase

Use when: pointing out that a claim reflects what someone thinks ought to be, not what is

A "value judgment" reflects a moral, aesthetic, or normative preference — it cannot be proven true or false by evidence alone. Naming it as such doesn't invalidate it; it just puts it in the right category.

"Whether the policy is fair is a value judgment, not a fact — reasonable people with access to the same data can reach different conclusions."

Is that your opinion, or is there evidence for it?clarifying question

Use when: pressing someone to distinguish their personal view from a documented finding

A direct but respectful way to ask whether a claim is grounded in data or simply reflects a personal impression. It raises the standard of the conversation without being hostile.

"I hear you saying that approach doesn't work — but is that your opinion based on your experience, or is there evidence for it?"

That's a matter of interpretation.qualifying phrase

Use when: acknowledging that the same facts can support different conclusions depending on how they are read

Not all disagreements are about the facts themselves — sometimes people agree on the data but interpret it differently. This phrase names that distinction clearly and invites discussion of the interpretive frameworks in play.

"The unemployment figures are what they are — but whether they represent success or failure is a matter of interpretation."

I think we're conflating two different things here.clarifying phrase

Use when: separating two issues that have become tangled in the conversation

"Conflate" means to treat two distinct things as if they were the same. Naming conflation is a key analytical move — it untangles debates that have become unproductive because the terms are mixed up.

"I think we're conflating two different things here: the scientific question of what causes the problem, and the political question of what to do about it."

That's a deeply held personal conviction.respectful framing

Use when: acknowledging that someone's view is sincere and significant, even if not empirically grounded

Not all important beliefs need to be backed by evidence. Recognizing something as a "deeply held conviction" shows respect for the person and their integrity while also locating the claim outside the domain of factual dispute.

"I can see this is a deeply held personal conviction for you — I'm not going to try to argue you out of it with data, but I'd like to understand it better."

Let's separate the descriptive from the prescriptive.analytical move

Use when: distinguishing what is the case from what should be the case

"Descriptive" statements describe how things are; "prescriptive" statements say how things ought to be. Keeping these categories separate is fundamental to clear thinking and productive disagreement.

"Before we go further, let's separate the descriptive from the prescriptive — what does the evidence tell us is happening, and then separately, what do we think should be done about it?"

I'd call that an assumption, not a conclusion.critical phrase

Use when: pointing out that something is being treated as established when it hasn't been demonstrated

An "assumption" is something taken for granted as a starting point; a "conclusion" is something derived from reasoning and evidence. Naming unexamined assumptions is one of the most important moves in critical thinking.

"I'd call that an assumption, not a conclusion — the entire argument depends on that premise being true, but we haven't actually established it."