Grok

An Evaluation of the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on Core Ideas in New Experimentalism (e.g., Ian Hacking’s Philosophy of Science)

New Experimentalism, pioneered by Ian Hacking in Representing and Intervening (1983), shifts the philosophy of science from theory-centric models to the primacy of experimentation as an autonomous practice. Hacking’s core ideas emphasize that scientific knowledge emerges not from abstract hypotheses but from “intervening” in the world—manipulating phenomena to stabilize and make them “work” reliably—creating “self-vouching” entities (stable, repeatable phenomena that vouch for their own existence). Experiments are not mere tests of theory but generative acts that produce new realities, challenging the “observation” bias and highlighting the “autonomy of experiment.” 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 Hacking’s lens, exemplifies a failed “experiment” in judicial knowledge production: the prosecution’s “evidence chain” lacks interventional stability, generating unreliable “phenomena” of “disorder” without self-vouching, underscoring the risks of non-autonomous, theory-driven “lawfare.”

1. The Autonomy of Experiment: The “Evidence Chain” as Non-Interventional Pseudo-Experiment

Hacking argues experiments are autonomous: they intervene to produce stable effects, independent of prior theory, with success measured by the phenomena’s “working” (repeatability and utility).

The trial’s “evidence chain”—listing forwards (e.g., Hayek critiques or the “Trump-kneeling Xi” cartoon) as “knowingly false disruptions”—fails autonomy: no intervention tests “disorder” (e.g., no simulated retweet impacts or fact-check manipulations), relying on passive observation without generative stability. The prosecutor’s unverified admission confesses non-intervention—posts remain unmanipulated “data,” lacking self-vouching (no causal ripple from <100 retweets). Hacking would critique this as pseudo-experiment: the closed-door trial avoids experimental rigor, treating theory (“high education implies discernment”) as oracle, not tool. The result is epistemic fragility: without autonomous intervention, “justice” doesn’t “work,” echoing Hacking’s point that untested phenomena dissolve under scrutiny.

2. Self-Vouching Phenomena: Unstable “Disorder” Claims Lacking Repeatable Stability

Hacking’s self-vouching emphasizes phenomena that “vouch for themselves”—stable, manipulable entities emerging from experiments, not imposed narratives.

The claim of “serious social disorder” lacks vouching: no repeatable intervention (e.g., controlled exposure to similar forwards) stabilizes “effect”—zero observed chaos (anomalies like millions unpunished). Chen’s prison letter intervenes brilliantly—avalanche theory and rumor taxonomy (art/emotion/reason/fact) generate stable counter-phenomena (non-linear null causality)—yet the non-oral appeal dismisses it, refusing experimental autonomy. Hacking would see this as methodological failure: judicial “evidence” is unstable narrative, not self-sustaining reality, as in particle physics where unvouched tracks vanish. The 20-month sentence amplifies the instability: imposed without stable metric, it risks non-repeatable “justice.”

3. Intervening in the World: Suppressed Inquiry as Missed Opportunity for Knowledge Production

Hacking posits science advances by intervening—doing, not just theorizing—to create new entities; non-intervention stagnates.

The barred defense and “shut up” directive foreclose intervention: Chen’s taxonomy could produce knowledge (e.g., falsifiable “rumor” criteria), but suppression theorizes without doing. Selective enforcement—unintervened shares thriving—exposes the stagnation: the judiciary intervenes punitively, not productively, as Hacking warns against “theory’s empire.” The prosecutor’s non-verification admits this: without intervention (fact-checks), “disorder” remains hypothetical, echoing Hacking’s call for “working” phenomena over idle speculation.

Conclusion: Hacking’s Lens on the Case—An Unvouched Experiment in Fragile “Order”

From Ian Hacking’s New Experimentalism, the Chen Jingyuan case is a stalled intervention: non-autonomous “evidence” lacks self-vouching stability, suppressing generative inquiry for stagnant theory. As of October 24, 2025, no retrial or exoneration has occurred; Chen’s account remains dormant, its quiet a latent experiment in resilience. This case cautions: knowledge demands doing—evade it, and “justice” unravels. As Hacking affirmed, “If you can spray them, then they are real”—may evidentiary spray yet reveal the truth.