Mechanism-First Epistemology: A Naturalist Framework for Evaluating Explanations
I’ve been trying to formalize a personal philosophical framework and I’d like serious critique from people who know philosophy of science / epistemology better than I do.
The rough label I’d give it is “Mechanistic Naturalism” or “Mechanism-First Epistemology.”
Core idea:
Reality is governed by discoverable causal mechanisms independent of belief, preference, or narrative. Explanations should be judged primarily by mechanistic clarity, predictive power, and empirical contact rather than emotional satisfaction, authority, or metaphysical comfort.
I hold a mix of ontological naturalism + methodological naturalism, but with what I’d call a spiritual orientation toward truth-seeking. By that I mean spirituality is not belief without evidence, but disciplined alignment with reality: humility, integrity, willingness to revise beliefs, reverence for existence, and moral seriousness in perception and conduct.
Some core principles:
- Mystery is not evidence.
- Ignorance is not proof of supernatural explanation.
- Confidence should be proportional to mechanistic understanding and empirical validation.
- Explanations without causal structure are narratives, not understanding.
- Outcomes are usually products of interacting systems, constraints, and feedback loops rather than isolated causes.
- Truth is correspondence with reality, not consensus or comfort.
I’m especially interested in the idea of “mechanism supremacy” — the habit of asking “by what mechanism?” rather than accepting explanation at the level of story.
At the same time, I don’t want this to collapse into shallow reductionism or scientism. I’m not arguing that all human experience is reducible to simplistic material explanation, only that confidence should scale with explanatory power and reality-contact.
Questions:
Is there already a better formal name for this position in philosophy?
Is this basically just naturalized epistemology / scientific realism / pragmatism with different branding?
Where are the strongest critiques of this view?
What major philosophers or traditions should I read if I want to sharpen or challenge this framework?
I’d rather be corrected than affirmed, so I’m looking for strong criticism, not agreement.