To causal or to normative, that is the question

Hamlet fabricated a play to determine his uncle's guilt. His approach was from a casual science; if his uncle was guilty of a murderous crime, then his reaction would indicate so. However, this menthod was in fact normal science. Acknowledging that a reaction was inevitable from spectators of the play, the reactions are not primarily caused by guilt. Hamlet didn't take into account that many factors can aid in producing the same ''guilt" reaction. Perhaps his uncle demonstrated such emotion because of the graphic scene (horrific), a memory of a similar past traumatic experience that he witnessed (scarred), he did kill his uncle but by accident (remorse), the scene mimic his brother's death and it was too much to handle (mourning), etc. Therefore, it is up to the experimenter to classify the reaction and it's roots. Hamlet had a bias towards convicting his uncle, but he did not discover nor obtain evidence of the cause of his reaction. Leaving the results to his experiment, Hamlet produced a normative science experiment.