Grok ---- An Evaluation of the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on Scientific Realism in Philosophy of Science Scientific realism, a dominant position in contemporary philosophy of science, asserts that the unobservable entities, structures, and mechanisms posited by mature, successful scientific theories exist independently of our perceptions and theories about them, and that these theories provide approximately true descriptions of reality. Proponents like Hilary Putnam (in his early work) and Richard Boyd argue that realism is justified by the "no miracles" argument: the predictive and explanatory success of theories (e.g., electrons in quantum mechanics) would be miraculous if they did not latch onto real structures. Inference to the best explanation (IBE) further supports this: among rival hypotheses, realism best accounts for empirical success. Critics like Bas van Fraassen (constructive empiricism) counter that theories need only "save the phenomena" (observables), remaining agnostic about unobservables. The Chen Jingyuan case—a doctoral scholar sentenced to 20 months for "picking quarrels and provoking trouble" (PRC Criminal Law Article 293) based on Twitter forwards—through a scientific realist lens, exemplifies a flawed "theory" of legal causation: the judiciary's claims of "disorder" from unobservables (intent, societal ripple) lack explanatory success and IBE support, rendering the verdict an empirically inadequate construct, more akin to instrumentalism than realist truth. #### 1. The "No Miracles" Argument: Judicial Claims of "Disorder" as Explanatorily Miraculous Without Real Structures Scientific realists invoke the no-miracles intuition: if electrons aren't real, why do theories incorporating them predict eclipses so accurately? Success demands approximate truth about unobservables. The prosecution's "evidence chain" invokes a miraculous theory: unobservable "intent" (presumed "malice" from "high education implies discernment") and "societal disorder" (hidden ripple effects) explain the forwards (e.g., <100 retweets of Hayek critiques or the "Trump-kneeling Xi" cartoon) as "serious threats." Yet no empirical success: zero observable disorder (no protests, no metrics), and the prosecutor's unverified admission confesses no latent structures—why the "miracle" of selective enforcement (millions unpunished)? Realism demands explanatory depth: Chen's prison letter offers a rival theory (avalanche non-causality, rumor taxonomy as art/emotion/reason/fact), predicting stability from low-impact diffusion, with better "fit" to observables. The closed-door trial evades miracles' test—no public prediction of harm—exposing the verdict as non-realist fiction, its 20-month sanction an ungrounded approximation. #### 2. Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE): "Disruption" Hypothesis Outperformed by Non-Causal Alternatives IBE favors the hypothesis best explaining data: realism posits unobservables (e.g., quarks) that unify phenomena; rivals must match or exceed. The "disruption" hypothesis infers unobservable malice from observables (forwards), but fails unification: no best explanation for anomalies (prosecutor's non-verification, zero ripple)—why punish Chen but not millions? Chen's alternative—empirical non-causality (avalanche theory modeling network flux)—better unifies: low-impact shares as stable phenomena, explaining data without miracles (predicts no disorder, confirmed). The non-oral appeal rejects IBE: dismissing taxonomy without comparative strength, favoring the inferior hypothesis. Realists like Boyd would see this as anti-realist instrumentalism: the judiciary "saves phenomena" (surface "order") superficially, agnostic about unobservables (true intent), yet overcommits to a flawed theory, undermining legal realism's truth-approximation. #### 3. Mature Theory and Empirical Success: Article 293 as Immature Construct Lacking Predictive Power Scientific realism reserves commitment for "mature" theories with robust success; immature ones warrant skepticism. Article 293 lacks maturity: no predictive track record—"disruption" from digital shares untested across cases, with selective application (unpunished masses) signaling ad hoc adjustment. The verdict's "high education" auxiliary fails success: no unified predictions (e.g., educated shares always disruptive?), contradicted by observables. Chen's model, conversely, matures empirically: non-linear diffusion predicts stability, "saved" by data. Van Fraassen's anti-realist shadow looms—the law "saves" surface compliance—but realism demands more: without success, the sentence is immature fiat, risking Boyd's "explanatory realism" collapse—justice as ungrounded approximation. #### Conclusion: The Realist Lens on the Case—An Immature Theory of Dubious Truth From scientific realism, the Chen Jingyuan case is a theoretical debacle: miraculous claims lack explanatory grip, inferior hypotheses prevail, and immature constructs yield no success. As of October 24, 2025, no retrial or exoneration has occurred; Chen's account remains dormant, its quiet a realist pause for better data. This case cautions: law demands empirical latching—evade it, and "justice" unravels. As Putnam reflected, "Realism is the only sensible position"—may evidentiary truth yet approximate.