A nomic judgement is one which involves judging the proposition according to normalcy. Normalcy is the uniform behaviour of the world, knowledge about which is acquired through observation and repeated experimentation.
To perform a nomic judgement, one investigates how common the relationship between the subject and the predicate is actualized in the real world. This is done by repeated experimentation. Judgement depends on whether or not a violation of normalcy follows from affirming this relation. When judged according to normalcy, a proposition is either:
Nomically Necessary: a proposition whose negation violates normalcy. For example: “fire burns cotton”.
Nomically Impossible: a proposition that violates normalcy. For example: “fire does not burn cotton”.
Nomically Possible: a proposition that neither violates normalcy, nor whose negation violates normalcy. For example: “Zayd will have curry for lunch”.
 The number of times the relationship between the subject and predicate needs to observed in order for it to be deemed part of normalcy, is subjective. Once the observer no longer doubts that the relation will actualize the next time it is tested, is when the observer has judged the relationship as being part of normalcy.
 “Fire burns cotton” is affirmed given the number of times cotton was observed burning upon contact with fire. Observed either by the one judging the proposition himself, or by others who relayed their observations to the judge. All of this circumstantial evidence, when taken collectively, is nomic proof for the truth of the proposition.