Ludwig Wittgenstein’s later philosophy remains an influential and powerful source of resistance to natural-scientific explanations of cultural phenomena such as film. For example, in advancing his position of extreme autonomism, which excludes the natural sciences from the study of film and the arts as “cultural practices,” film theorist David Rodowick leans heavily on the notion of the “autonomy of humanistic understanding” proposed by leading Wittgenstein authority P. M. S. Hacker, which Hacker extrapolates from Wittgenstein’s later writings. The moderate autonomism I argue for in this book acknowledges that the sciences, both natural and social, have a significant role to play in the study of film and other humanistic phenomena. It is therefore imperative that I first show that, whether one agrees with it or not, Wittgenstein’s later philosophy does not in fact legitimize the rejection of the natural sciences from the investigation of cultural phenomena like film and art. I do so by examining Wittgenstein’s remarks on a “science of aesthetics” in section one and conceptual change occasioned by science in section two. I also criticize Rodowick’s assertion that natural-scientific explanations of film offered by film theorists Noël Carroll and David Bordwell are “positivist” in section three.