{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0265748031496063, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.089820359281437, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
For Realism and Against the Inadequacies of Common Sense: A Response to Arthur Marwick

Arthur Marwick’s polemical defence of ’The Historical Approach’ to historical study against ’The Metaphysical Approach&dquo; is flawed on empirical and philosophical levels. Empirically, he does not live up to his prescription of necessarily relying upon ’sources’ but instead seems to ignore them at many places or distorts them such as to rob them of intelligence and coherence. Philosophically, he has barely begun to bother with his homework. Marwick wishes to defend the ’professional’ guild of historians but does not allow the same degree of professionalism to philosophers. Philosophy of history (and of explanation more generally) is not a simple matter that one can pick up at a few days’ notice, as Marwick’s many confusions and ellisions show. The philosophy of explanation as it has developed as a ’discipline’ or ’discourse’ in recent decades is an empirical as well as a critical mode of enquiry that has produced