Today’s science of sex often reduces arousal and pleasure to pulse rates, brain waves, vaginal lubrication and other bodily metrics, prioritizing quantifiable data over subjective experience. This framework originated in the progressive sexual revolution of the 1960s – yet, as philosopher Paul Giladi argues, far from contributing to sexual emancipation, it risks leading us to disbelieve what people, and especially women, say about their own states of arousal. For true sexual liberation, we need to reclaim the erotic from scientific imperialism.

Scientific naturalism is the idea that reality is just what the natural sciences deem it to be, and the ways in which we make sense of things are justifiable only by the methods of the natural sciences. Part of what makes scientific naturalism so interesting is that some philosophers seem to regard developments in physics, chemistry, and biology with envy. In the Western European context, the spectacular and rapid expansions in scientific knowledge – especially in the 19^th century – grossly outpaced the progress made in philosophy. Revolutions were taking place in the discovery of atoms, evolutionary adaptations, and infectious diseases. By contrast, philosophers were (and still are) grappling with how to solve the "classic" problems of free will, universals, induction, etc. A thought then occurred to some of them: what if advances in scientific inquiry could be used to settle disputes in metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of mind, and moral philosophy?

SUGGESTED VIEWING The meaning of sex With Niki Seth-Smith, Janne Teller, Finn Mackay, Anders Sandberg

This insight led to the development of logical empiricism in the 1920s – which famously proclaimed metaphysical statements and theological statements to be meaningless – and Willard Quine’s project of "naturalistic epistemology," which aimed to recast discourse about knowledge and justification as a branch of empirical psychology. While logical empiricism and Quine’s "Epistemology Naturalised" no longer dominate the Anglo-American philosophical landscape per se, their imprint cannot be overstated: much Anglo-American philosophy has yet to emerge from their shadows, and remains quite charmed by scientific naturalism.

"Can scientific research make sex good again?"

In her most recent book, Katherine Angel asked "Can scientific research make sex good again?", a question that riffs on Michel Foucault’s provocative line in his The Will to Knowledge (1978). The matter is not just whether a scientific naturalist account of sexual arousal enables more pleasurable sexual activities. It’s also whether scientific naturalist conceptual frameworks might be employed to produce uplifting sexual worlds. With this in mind, consider the following lines from Season 1 of Showtime’s Masters of Sex, a drama series focusing on the academic and personal lives of William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson, whose co-authored work, Human Sexual Response (1966), transformed sexology:

What if we could understand the basic physiology underneath all that nonsense?

Physiology [serves to] shine a light into the darkness.

Science holds the key!

I’m wiring Miss DiMello to monitor her pulse, heart rate, and brain waves, to illuminate to my patients and to the general community what happens to the body during sexual stimulation and orgasm.

… the provost of the entire university will be watching me [mount and use the Ulysses, a motor-powered plastic dildo with clinical accoutrements].

No. He’s not watching you. He’s watching science.

All of our subjects know they’re advancing the course of science.

Anything for science!