Grok

An Evaluation of the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on Bas van Fraassen’s Constructive Empiricism in Philosophy of Science

Bas van Fraassen’s constructive empiricism (CE), outlined in The Scientific Image (1980), reorients philosophy of science toward empirical adequacy: scientific theories need only “save the phenomena”—accurately describing and predicting observables—without committing to truth about unobservables (e.g., hidden mechanisms or theoretical entities). Acceptance of a theory is pragmatic, based on its utility for empirical engagement, not belief in its full ontology; models are instruments, underdetermined by data, and rival theories may equally fit observables. Van Fraassen critiques “explanatory realism,” favoring agnosticism about unobservables to avoid metaphysical overreach. 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 van Fraassen’s lens, exemplifies a failed “empirical model”: the judiciary’s “disruption” theory lacks observable adequacy, overreaching into unobservable “intent” without pragmatic utility, rendering the verdict an underdetermined construct of dubious instrumental value.

1. Empirical Adequacy and Saving the Phenomena: The “Evidence Chain” as Observably Deficient Model

Van Fraassen’s adequacy criterion requires theories to empirically “save” observables—matching data without fabricating untestables—while remaining agnostic on hidden structures.

The prosecution’s model—“knowingly false rumors causing serious disorder”—fails observables: no data “saved” (e.g., zero societal ripple from <100 retweets of Hayek critiques or the “Trump-kneeling Xi” cartoon), and the prosecutor’s unverified admission confesses no empirical fit. The “high education implies discernment” hypothesis fabricates unobservables (latent “intent”) without instrumental success—lacking predictive power (no quantified chaos metrics). Van Fraassen would dismiss this as non-adequate: the closed-door trial evades data confrontation, as Chen’s prison letter (taxonomy of “rumors” as art/emotion/reason/fact, avalanche theory modeling non-causal flux) offers a rival model saving the same “phenomena” (low-impact shares) with better parsimony. Without adequacy, the 20-month sentence is pragmatically idle—an underdetermined construct yielding no observable “order.”

2. Pragmatic Acceptance and Underdetermination: Judicial Overcommitment to Unobservable “Intent”

CE accepts theories instrumentally if they aid empirical tasks, remaining agnostic on unobservables; underdetermination means multiple models fit data equally.

The verdict overcommits to unobservables: “intent” as hidden theoretical entity (discernment implying malice) is accepted beyond pragmatism, underdetermined by observables (no causal tests). Selective enforcement (millions unpunished) highlights rivals: a non-punitive model (tolerance for inquiry) fits data equally, yet discarded without utility justification. Van Fraassen would critique this realism: the non-oral appeal rejects agnosticism, enforcing a single model sans empirical edge—evidentiary voids (prosecutor’s confession) underdetermine “disruption,” making acceptance dogmatic, not pragmatic. The sentence’s “utility”—deterrence—fails even instrumentally: suppressed taxonomy (Chen’s alternative) offers better “fit” for observable stability.

3. The Instrumentalist View of Theory: “Order” as Non-Generative Model, Lacking Empirical Engagement

Van Fraassen views theories as tools for observables, not explanatory truths; generative success lies in empirical intervention, not metaphysical speculation.

The judiciary’s “order” model is non-generative: no intervention tests “disorder” (e.g., controlled forward simulations), relying on speculative “intent” without empirical yield. The “shut up” directive bars engagement—Chen’s avalanche theory intervenes productively (non-linear null causality)—treating the model as truth, not tool. Van Fraassen would see instrumental failure: anomalies (zero ripple) render it empirically barren, as selective unpunished shares generate no stable “phenomena.” The verdict’s 20 months is pragmatic overkill—lacking generative utility, it underperforms even conservative rivals.

Conclusion: Van Fraassen’s Lens on the Case—An Empirically Inadequate Construct of Dubious Utility

From Bas van Fraassen’s constructive empiricism, the Chen Jingyuan case is a deficient model: unsaved observables, overcommitted unobservables, and non-generative tools fail adequacy and pragmatism. As of October 24, 2025, no retrial or exoneration has occurred; Chen’s account remains dormant, its quiet an agnostic suspension. This case cautions: justice demands empirical fit—overreach, and the model crumbles. As van Fraassen quipped, “Science must save the phenomena”—may law yet heed the data.