Grok

An Evaluation of the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on Richard Boyd’s Philosophical Core Ideas

Richard Boyd (1945-2019), a prominent philosopher of science and ethics, championed scientific realism in works like Realism, Anti-Foundationalism and the Enthusiasm for Naturalized Epistemology (1988) and his contributions to The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Science. His core ideas include the “no-miracles argument”: the predictive success of mature sciences (e.g., quantum mechanics) would be an inexplicable miracle if theories did not latch onto approximate truths about unobservable entities; the causal theory of reference, where terms like “electron” or “gene” hook onto natural kinds via historical causal chains, not descriptions; and natural kinds as homeostatic property clusters, enabling explanatory power without rigid essences. Boyd extended this to moral realism, treating ethical properties as natural kinds. 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 Boyd’s lens, exemplifies anti-realist failure: the judiciary’s “disruption” theory lacks causal latching and explanatory success, multiplying “miracles” of unhooked terms like “intent,” undermining justice as a natural kind.

1. The No-Miracles Argument: “Disorder” Claims as Explanatorily Miraculous Without Causal Latching

Boyd’s no-miracles intuition posits that science’s instrumental success (e.g., accurate predictions) demands realism—theories hook onto real structures, or success is inexplicable luck.

The prosecution’s “evidence chain” invokes a miraculous theory: unobservable “intent” (presumed “malice” from “high education implies discernment”) “explains” forwards (e.g., <100 retweets of Hayek critiques or the “Trump-kneeling Xi” cartoon) as “serious disruptions,” yet no success—no predicted chaos (zero ripple), prosecutor’s unverified admission confessing the luck. Chen’s prison letter counters with realist hooking: taxonomy (art/emotion/reason/fact) and avalanche theory causally latch to natural kinds (non-linear diffusion), predicting stability without miracles. The closed-door trial evades the argument: no public testing of latching, as selective enforcement (millions unpunished) multiplies inexplicability—why “hook” only Chen? Boyd would dismiss this as anti-realist instrumentalism: the 20-month sentence “works” superficially (deterrence facade) but lacks explanatory depth, a pseudo-theory defying no-miracles rigor.

2. Causal Theory of Reference: “Intent” and “Order” as Unhooked Terms Lacking Historical Chains

Boyd’s causal reference anchors terms to kinds via historical-genetic chains—e.g., “water” refers to H₂O through causal history, not descriptive fit.

Article 293’s “picking quarrels” unhooks reference: “disruptive intent” lacks causal chain—no historical link to disorder (evidentiary voids, zero metrics)—drifting into subjective “high education” proxy. The non-oral appeal severs further: Chen’s taxonomy hooks “rumor” to natural kinds (non-falsifiable art vs. verifiable fact), causally tracing to flux (avalanche model), yet barred as “resistance.” Selective unpunished shares expose the drift: the term “disruption” references differently across instances, lacking genetic fixity. Boyd would see referential failure: justice demands hooked kinds—causal “order” unhooked becomes arbitrary, inverting realism into descriptive illusion, where 20 months’ fiat references no real structure.

3. Natural Kinds and Explanatory Power: “Disruption” as Pseudo-Kind Without Homeostatic Clusters

Boyd’s natural kinds are homeostatic clusters—properties self-stabilizing through causal mechanisms—enabling science’s explanatory success.

“Disruption” fails as kind: no homeostatic cluster—unverified posts cluster no causal properties (prosecutor’s confession), zero stability (no ripple). Chen’s alternative clusters realistically: taxonomy homes “rumor” properties (affective art vs. factual reason), avalanche explaining non-clustering chaos. The judiciary’s fiat lacks explanatory power: selective enforcement destabilizes the kind—millions unpunished dissolve homeostasis. Boyd would indict this as pseudo-realism: the sentence’s “success” (deterrence) is illusory, without natural explanatory grip—justice as unhomed fiction.

Conclusion: Boyd’s Lens on the Case—An Unhooked Miracle of Explanatory Void

From Richard Boyd’s scientific realism, the Chen Jingyuan case is unhooking’s void: miraculous claims unlatched from kinds, causal references adrift, pseudo-clusters lacking homeostasis. As of October 25, 2025, no retrial or exoneration has occurred; Chen’s account remains dormant, its quiet a realist anchor in the drift. This case cautions: realism demands causal grip—evade it, and “justice” unravels. As Boyd argued, “Success without truth is miraculous”—may explanatory truth yet hook.