For a deeply religious person, religion might rate high, whereas the choice of what breakfat cereal to buy may be low. Such a person would probably give up eating Cheerios before they would change their religion.

Value Systems as Truth Sources
As you might already have figured out, evaluations can come from one of the four sources for truth. We can determine a thing's value on the basis of one of the four truth systems: personal values, influential values, literary values, and scientific values. Each of these approaches to evaluation is distinct.

Personal Systems
A personal system assigns value to things on the basis of our personal beliefs, what we regard as good or bad, right or wrong. This system is a special part of us; it's very personal. Others may not share it, but that doesn't matter. If we default to this system, we choose solely on the basis of how we feel about things.

Influential Systems
As a writer, if you are aware of someone's value system, you may be able to appeal to it in order to influence them. Politicians use this as a way to get votes. You've heard them talk about "the importance of family values." They know that many voters value their 'family' and by associating an issue with that value they are able to influence their choice of who to vote for.

Artistic Systems
A set of values has developed over time with regard to the expression of artistic truth. In the western world, we value stories with a linear plot (a beginning, a middle, and an end) and irony. We value originality and technique in painting, sculpture and music. A 'cover band', for example, is not valued as highly as the band they are imitating.

Scientific Systems
Values based on the scientific method use a strict and logical set of principles. Objectivity is utmost. Experimentation and empirical proof are required. In many ways, it is the polar opposite of values derived from a personal system.

When Value Systems Collide
Three hundred years ago people believed that the earth was the center of the universe and that the sun moved around it. This belief was tied to their religious beliefs, since it seemed illogical that God would not have put His greatest creations at the center of things. As God's creations, we must be at the center andall things must revolve around us...starting, of course, with the sun. This is now referred to as the 'centrist' view of the universe.

People who suggested views other than this were branded as heretics. (The obvious evidence occurred every day, since one need only look to the skies to see that the sun rose in the morning, moved across the sky, and set in the evening. The sun was moving; we were not.) Only those who valued scientific truth (a special conception of beliefs based on a logical method of reason known as empiricism) dared to consider alternative explanations.

As more and more evidence accumulated, belief in the centrist point of view became more difficult. New instruments, like the telescope, made it possible to observe the heavens and collect data that contradicted the centrist's position.

Today, with the extensive amount of proof to the contrary that is available, it would seem preposterous to argue the point. Nearly everyone now accepts the view that the sun, not the earth, is at the center of our solar system. (To be even more correct, we should note that it is not at the exact center, but off slightly.)

To those persons of the eighteenth century who believed that the earth was at the center of the universe, all other ideas based on that belief were valid. The earth-centered statement was true for them. For most of them, it was close to the MOST IMPORTANT end of their value system. And the fact that it supported their religious views made it a critical part of their belief system. When the scientists produced the evidence that conflicted with popular view, they were silenced. But eventually, the scientific truth couldn't be denied.

What caused this acceptance? It was primarily due to two aspects of scientific truth: predicability and reliability. If a system has predicability, people are able to use it to plan and develop things. Knowing when the sun will rise and being able to rely on that prediction, gives people a way to cash in. The farmer can more accurately plant and harvest crops. Knowing where the moon will be at a given point in time made it possible for us launch space ships and land there. For a long time, there were many people who did not accept the scientific truth. But eventually, the collision forced a resolution.

What are the Criteria?
Whenever a judgment is made, some kind of scale is used. The choice of criteria for that scale relates directly to the type of truth being expressed. The truth, in turn, relates directly to a value system.

Source of Criteria When the Truth is Personal
In the case of the personal truth, the criteria are your own beliefs, without regard for external measures. Since personal writing is most concerned with one's feelings, personal evaluations are derived from the individual's belief system; the writer disregards logic and the opinions or ideas of others. The writer of personal truth says "I believe it and that makes it true."

As a result, the evaluations of such writers are rarely useful to others. The only way your comments are useful is if the reader's tastes parallel yours. You may know, for example, that a friend of yours enjoys the same kinds of movies you do. If your friend says she didn't like "The Silence of the Lambs" you may be sure that you won't like it either. But this only comes from experience. You have to have enugh occasions where you discover common tastes for that writer's personal evaluation to be worth anything to you.

Source of Criteria When the Truth is Influential
Influential truth is often disguises as something else because it is most effective when the reader is unaware of its intent. Thus, many pieces of influential writing have some of the characteristics of the personal, artistic, and scientific truth. Advertising often does this. The influential writer adopts the criteria of the scientific writer, but "cheats" a little.

An ad appeared on television a few years ago claiming that a particular pain reliever was tested in a hospital study and found to be "twice as effective as aspirin in relieving pain." That statement was true. And it may have influenced a number of people to buy that pain killer, but it wasn't truly scientific, since it didn't present ALL of the facts. One piece of information was omitted--that the study was done on women suffering from post-partem depression. The obligation of the scientific writer to tell the WHOLE truth was not obeyed. It appeared that the writer was applying scientific criteria, but her wasn't.

Source of Criteria When the Truth is Artistic
Since we're talking about writing, we'll limit this discussion to literature, but keep in mind that the principles apply to all of the arts. When the focus of writing is not on what is said or who is saying it, but on the way it is said, the result is artistic writing. When used in conjunction with evaluation, this focus most often produces an effect known as satire.

During a time of extreme famine and overpopulation in Ireland, Jonathan Swift wrote an essay titled "A Modest Proposal." He suggested that the people of London kill their young and serve them for dinner. This, he argued, would solve both problems, overpopulation AND hunger. He used a serious evaluation to discuss these problems, but in the end it was clear that he was not serious, at least not about his solution. He wrote the essay as a way to make his point by shocking his readers.

Swift's essay is still widely read, but artistic evaluations are not very common. On the occasions when they appear, most readers realize the satirical nature of the writing because of the writer's reputation (Art Buchwald, for example) or the extreme ludicrousness of the ideas proposed.

Source of Criteria When the Truth is Scientific
Scientific truth is based on objectivity. As such, it is the antithesis of personal truth. While evaluation used with personal truth is subjective, evaluation used with scientific truth must be objective and as free of the writer's personal values as possible.

To achieve this, the scientific writer always works from an external set of criteria. He or she uses a value system that determines the value of something based on a well-defined set of standards. The writer can use a well-known and popularly accepted system of evaluation. When clear, objective standards are used anyone can evaluate and arrive at the same conclusion. If you agree that the minimum butterfat content for good ice cream is 18%, all you need to do is measure the amount of butterfat to determine whether or not the ice cream you're eating is good. And anyone else can compare his or her values against those expressed in the criteria. If others accept the 18% minimum, then everyone will agree.

The Evaluation Equation
Another way of looking at evaluation is through an "If...then" approach. "IF a shoe is comfortable and lasts a long time, THEN it is a good shoe." Statements like this, whether specifically expressed or implied, are valuative statements. Very often, the IF portion is left out, but you can deduce what it would be; the author expects you to do so. The IF portion of the statement expresses the criteria. Thus, an author may begin by giving the IF's and then explain how the thing being evaluated does or does not have them. If you accept the criteria, you must accept the evaluation.

A major concern is the type of truth. The system of evaluation you use should reflect an understanding of the type of truth you want to express. Scientists use an accepted value system when writing for other scientists: scientific truth. Advertisers choose their value system depending upon their potential buyers: influential truth. The teenager, trying to convince his father that the car he wants to buy is a good one, puts his argument in the context of a different value system from the one he uses when trying to convince a friend of the same thing. This focus on the type of truth causes a problem in a writing course, because your reader is the instructor, but you must write AS IF there were a different reader. Your instructor will evaluate your writing on the basis of that hypothetical reader's value system. This means that you are writing for only one audience, but learning to write for many others.

Evaluation and the Writing Process
Remember that you are making a judgment whenever you evaluate. If that judgment is based solely on your feelings, your aim is expressive. If it is derived from an objective set of criteria, it is scientific. If it is satirical, with the focus on the way you say it, it is literary. If your aim is influential, you will enlist some of the tools of another aim to convince your reader of the value.

Value terms are a part of evaluation so don't be afraid to use them. Like and dislike (and their derivatives love, hate, and other extremes of emotion) are the hallmark of personal evaluations. Good and bad and their equivalents are common to influential evaluation, while scientific writing may often use terms allowing for varying degrees of quality. (Sometimes scientific writers opt for numbers to permit greater degrees of distinction.)

Practical Evlaution
"Achieving a purpose" is one of the most popular systems of evaluation, but if you use this method you need to provide your reader with some indication of what you believe is the purpose of the thing you're evaluating.

Questions anyone? For answers, send an e-mail to Dr. Write.