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.

中文翻译：

---

解决亚当·斯密历史研究中关于推断最佳解释的一个看似悖论

摘要

本文旨在解决亚当·斯密历史研究中关于最佳解释推理的一个看似悖论。正如许多当代历史学家所证明的那样，在《国富论》中，斯密认为“自然进步”优先于历史进步模式。哲学史上的这两个相互竞争的练习提出了以前未探索过的问题，即什么是证明哪种模型最好的关键测试，史密斯广泛使用科学现实主义标准，例如寻求潜在的普遍因果关系、解释和预测能力的普遍性以及吸引力说服的艺术。