In this episode, host Angus Menuge continues a discussion with Dr. Robert Larmer about his chapter on methodological naturalism in the recent volume Minding the Brain. In this segment of the conversation, Menuge and Larmer examine the justifications for methodological naturalism and critique some of the common arguments. They discuss the claim that non-natural causes are unknowable by scientific inquiry and argue that this assumption is not justified. They also address the argument that methodological naturalism is necessary for science, arguing instead that it puts science in a straight jacket, preventing it from recognizing nonphysical causes. Inferring a nonphysical cause, Larmer argues, does not have to be a science stopper and can be challenged like any other explanation. Also discussed is the distinction between science that deals with regularities and science that deals with non-regular events. Ultimately, says Larmer, insisting on a purely physical account of consciousness undermines rationality.

Additional Resources

• This is Part 2 of a multi-episode interview. Listen to Part 1 here
• Minding the Brain: Models of the Mind, Information, and Empirical Science
• Dr. Robert Larmer at robertlarmer.com