Abstract

If animism is regarded as an ontology—a set of beliefs regarding the kinds of entities that exist—it is incompatible with naturalism: the idea that the only causal entities and powers are those identified by our best science. But an enactivist and practice-based theory of knowledge enables us to see that ontologies emerge from practices. An animistic ontology is one way of theorizing ‘animic’ practices, while naturalism is one way of theorizing the practice of science. There exist different ways of theorizing each set of practices, only some of which lead to a verdict of incompatibility. But an enactivist and practice-based theory of knowledge takes us further. By lending support to a cognitive pluralism, it gives us reason to reject naturalism and opens the door to a defence of animism.