Empirical legal studies thrive in the U.S. but not so much elsewhere. Yet even in the U.S., in what way empirical work is useful for legal arguments, which are normative, remains an unanswered question.
Professor Yun-chien Chang will point out the junction between empirical facts and normative arguments. Both teleological and consequentialist arguments, in one of the premises, require “difference-making facts,” which point out causal relations. Many empirical researches make causal inferences and thus constitute an essential part in teleological and consequentialist arguments, which are normative.