  I aim to clarify the physical content and significance of naturalness.
Physicists' earliest understanding of naturalness, as an autonomy of scales
(AoS) requirement provides the most cogent definition of naturalness and I will
assert that i) this provides a uniform notion which undergirds a myriad
prominent naturalness conditions, ii) this is a reasonable criterion to impose
on EFTs and iii) the successes and violations of naturalness are best
understood when adhering to this notion of naturalness. I argue that this
principle is neither an aesthetic nor a sociologically-influenced principle. I
contend that naturalness may only be plausibly argued to be an
aesthetic/sociological principle when formal measures of naturalness and their
use in physics communities are conflated with the central dogma of naturalness
- the former may indeed be argued to be sociologically-influenced and somewhat
arbitrary - but these formal measures of naturalness are in fact less
successful than AoS naturalness. I put forward arguments as to why AoS
naturalness is well-defined and why it was reasonable for physicists to endorse
this naturalness principle on both theoretical and empirical grounds.
  Up to date, no compelling reasons have appeared as to why the laws of nature
should generically decoupling into quasi-autonomous physical domains. A
decoupling of scales in the quantum realm is often claimed to be entailed by
the Decoupling Theorem (Cao and Schweber (1993)), yet I will show that this
theorem is too weak to underwrite quasi-autonomous physical domains in quantum
field theories because one should additionally impose that parameters be
natural. Violations of naturalness would then have ontological import -
unnatural parameters would not be accurately described by EFTs but rather by
field theories exhibiting some kind of UV/IR interplay.
