Analyzing Philosophical Naturalism

When encountering a philosophical position, immediately ask:

1. Ontological: What does this claim exists in reality?
2. Methodological: What investigative methods does this endorse?
3. Causal: How does this account for physical effects?

Phase 1: Categorize the Position

• Identify ontological commitments (what exists)
• Identify methodological commitments (how we know)
• Note any supernatural or non-physical entities posited

Phase 2: Apply Causal Constraint Test

• Does the position involve entities that cause physical effects?
• If yes, how are these entities physically constituted?
• Check against causal closure principle

Phase 3: Historical Contextualization

• Locate position within scientific development phases:
  • Mechanical (17th century): Only material impacts
  • Newtonian (18th-19th): Force-based causation allowed
  • Conservation era (mid-19th): Energy conservation constraints
  • Modern (20th+): Causal closure of physical domain

Phase 4: Evaluate Coherence

• Test internal consistency
• Check compatibility with established science
• Assess explanatory adequacy

Example 1: Interactive Dualism Input: "Mental events are non-physical but cause brain states" Analysis:

• Ontological: Posits non-physical mental substances
• Methodological: Often relies on introspection/conceptual analysis
• Causal problem: Violates causal closure if mental events lack physical constitution
• Historical verdict: Problematic since conservation of energy discovery

Example 2: Moral Realism Input: "Moral facts exist independently of human attitudes" Analysis:

• Ontological: Posits objective moral properties
• Causal test: Do moral facts cause physical effects?
• If no: Potentially compatible with naturalism (epiphenomenal)
• If yes: Must be physically constituted or violate causal closure

• Distinguish realms: Mental, biological, social may require different naturalist treatments
• Track causal efficacy: Only causally active entities face immediate naturalist constraints
• Historical sensitivity: Naturalist requirements evolved with scientific understanding
• Avoid definitional debates: Focus on substantive commitments, not labels
• Test both directions: Does position conflict with naturalism? Does naturalism rule it out?

• Assuming all naturalists are physicalists (some allow non-physical but law-governed entities)
• Conflating methodological and ontological naturalism
• Ignoring the causal closure principle in evaluating dualist positions
• Treating naturalism as dogma rather than scientifically-motivated constraint
• Failing to distinguish between entities that do/don't have physical effects