 Of course, perhaps the error theorist could reply that it’s not queerness alone that shows that there are no normative facts. Perhaps, for example, this conclusion is supported by queerness – i.e., lack of parsimony, here – together with the fact that normative facts are not necessary as part of the explanation of any observation. Jean Hampton (1998: 21–22) seems to think that something like this is going on in the argument from queerness. This would make the argument from queerness a version of Harman’s (1977) argument. As such, it would mire the error theorist in all the issues surrounding that argument, which we will not delve into here. (But see Sturgeon 1985 and Majors 2007 for discussion.)