Grok

An Evaluation of the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on Thomas Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science Core Ideas

Thomas S. Kuhn (1922-1996), in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), revolutionized philosophy of science by introducing paradigms as shared frameworks guiding “normal science,” where anomalies accumulate to trigger crises, leading to revolutionary paradigm shifts. Science is not linear progress but discontinuous revolutions, marked by incommensurability—the radical incompatibility of competing paradigms—challenging the notion of objective rationality. Viewed through Kuhn’s lens, the Chen Jingyuan case—a scholar sentenced to 20 months for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” (PRC Criminal Law Article 293) over Twitter forwards—exemplifies a paradigm crisis in judicial “science”: the hegemonic “order-maintenance” paradigm suppresses anomalies, stifling revolutionary potential and entrenching incommensurable interpretive rifts. Below, I evaluate from key dimensions of Kuhn’s thought.

1. Normal Science Under the Hegemonic Paradigm: Judicial “Evidence Chains” as Puzzle-Solving Dogma

Kuhn describes normal science as puzzle-solving within a dominant paradigm, where anomalies are assimilated or ignored to maintain stability.

The trial embodies this: the “evidence chain” paradigm treats forwards (e.g., Hayek critiques or the “Trump-kneeling Xi” cartoon) as puzzles fitting the “knowingly false disruption” template, with “high education implies discernment” as unquestioned rule. Anomalies—like the prosecutor’s unverified posts or zero societal ripple (under 100 retweets)—are not puzzles to solve but suppressed, as in closed-door hearings and the “shut up” directive. Kuhn would see this as paradigmatic rigidity: the judiciary’s “normal science” enforces consensus without crisis, assimilating Chen’s prison letter (categorizing “rumors” into art/emotion/reason/fact) as mere noise, not a legitimate anomaly. This entrenches the paradigm, delaying revolutionary scrutiny of “picking quarrels” as a catch-all tool.

2. Accumulation of Anomalies and Paradigm Crisis: Evidence Voids as Unresolved Tensions

Anomalies—data defying the paradigm—build to crisis, exposing incommensurability between old and emergent views.

The case bristles with anomalies: no fact-checks, no causal links to “disorder,” selective enforcement (millions of similar forwards unpunished), and the prosecutor’s admission of non-verification. Chen’s “avalanche theory” (complex systems denying causal chaos) functions as an alternative interpretant, incommensurable with the court’s linear “disruption” model—forwarding as scholarly inquiry vs. intentional sabotage. Kuhnian crisis looms: these voids strain the paradigm, implicating its exhaustion, yet the non-oral appeal dismisses them, forestalling shift. This mirrors pre-revolutionary science (e.g., Ptolemaic anomalies ignored), where unresolved tensions signal impending rupture, but institutional inertia (e.g., “upper-level instructions”) perpetuates normalcy at the cost of truth.

3. Incommensurability and Revolutionary Potential: The Case as a Call for Judicial Paradigm Shift

Kuhn’s incommensurability posits paradigms as linguistically isolated, making comparison gestalt-like; revolutions occur when a new paradigm gains adherents.

The verdict’s “picking quarrels” label incommensurably clashes with Chen’s framework: his letter’s avalanche model (non-linear causation) vs. the court’s causal chain, rendering “disorder” a gestalt illusion. This rift—evident in the unheeded prison letter—hints at revolutionary potential: a shift toward evidentiary pluralism, where “anomalies” like unverified claims trigger communal reevaluation. Yet suppression (e.g., barred defense) blocks adherents, entrenching the old paradigm. Kuhn would view the case as pre-crisis ferment: without shift, justice stagnates; with it, a new “normal science” of transparent inquiry could emerge.

Conclusion: Kuhn’s Lens on the Case—A Paradigm on the Brink

From Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy of science, the Chen Jingyuan case is a paradigm teetering on crisis: normalcy assimilates anomalies, incommensurable tensions fester, and revolutionary inquiry is stifled, rendering justice a stagnant puzzle. As of October 21, 2025, no retrial or exoneration has occurred; Chen’s account remains silent, its anomalies a latent call for shift. This case warns: without embracing crisis, paradigms ossify. As Kuhn observed, science—and law—advances not by accumulation, but by bold rupture toward new horizons.