{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014608233731739707, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.231404958677686, '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}}
Resolving a seeming paradox in Adam Smith’s study of history with regard to inference to the best explanation

Abstract This paper aims to resolve a seeming paradox in Adam Smith’s study of history with regard to inference to the best explanation. In the Wealth of Nations Smith argued the priority of “natural progress” over the model of historical progress as evidenced by many contemporary historians. These two competing exercises in philosophical history raise the previously unexplored question of what are critical tests to justify which model is the best, with Smith’s wide use of scientific realist standards such as seeking for underlying general causality, generality in explanatory and predictive power, and appeal to the arts of persuasion.