{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03005181347150259, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.616438356164384, '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}}
On The Interpretation of The Civil Sphere: Understanding and Contention in Contemporary Social Science

scientific. We may employ the language of verification and falsification, but our argumentsabouttruthfulnessareoftenjustthat—arguments.Wecanconfidentlydistinguish bad from good work, and mediocre from excellent, but it is more difficult to make confident claims about a work’s truthfulness. Hidden just behind efforts at factual evaluation sit two responses that are, respectively, empirically more plausible and philosophically more honest. They are, first, “I don’t understand what you are saying,” and, second,“I disagree.”This is a human science, not a natural one. It is inevitable and right that we often disagree with one another, and only human that we find it difficult to understand. The language of factuality masks these fundamentally interpretive claims. This is even more the case when the work in dispute is explicitly theoretical and evaluative.