Criteria for Evaluating Worldviews

[magellan004]

That criteria is very hard to operationalize. How do you know what God's will is? You will think it is one thing, someone else will think it is another.

Not hard to operationalise from where I sit :) But I appreciate what you mean.

However the opening post asked ' do any of you on this board have any criteria that you use to discern whether a worldview or belief system is true?
Which isn't a matter of 'demonstrate', 'operationalise' etc. It's just a matter of what convinces us personally. (Although the OP does invite that discussion.)

On a broader note there is a hidden assumption in most TWEB discussions that THE WAY to gather knowledge is by looking at external markers - rather than internal ones. We all want to be able to share common experiences and interests. Maybe it's a way of finding who belongs to 'my tribe'.

Magellan

[ZackMartin]

On a broader note there is a hidden assumption in most TWEB discussions that THE WAY to gather knowledge is by looking at external markers - rather than internal ones. We all want to be able to share common experiences and interests. Maybe it's a way of finding who belongs to 'my tribe'.

I think both internal reasons and external reasons have a role to play.

On another thread, I expressed my strong opposition to capital punishment, and pointed out I have felt that way ever since I was a child. And someone complained that "I've always felt that way" is a very poor moral argument. And sure, I can give at least half a dozen arguments for that belief. But which came first, the feeling, or the argument used to defend it? I think I felt it was wrong long before I could articulately defend its wrongness. And as an explanation of why (in a causal sense) I feel the way I do, those arguments aren't very relevant, since my feeling preceded all those arguments (which is not to say that they have not helped reinforce it, but it didn't originate with them.)

In terms of giving an explanation of why I feel the way I do, I guess part of it might be to do with growing up in a country where the death penalty is abolished, and is no longer a live political issue (neither of the two major political parties support reintroducing it, and most of the minor ones don't either.) To me as a child, the death penalty was something alien and macabre, from that strange other world of American movies and TV shows. I was also raised with the importance of the notions of "two wrongs don't make a right", and the importance of forgiveness, and the death penalty seemed alien to both of them.

[magellan004]

I think both internal reasons and external reasons have a role to play.

On another thread, I expressed my strong opposition to capital punishment, and pointed out I have felt that way ever since I was a child. And someone complained that "I've always felt that way" is a very poor moral argument. And sure, I can give at least half a dozen arguments for that belief. But which came first, the feeling, or the argument used to defend it? I think I felt it was wrong long before I could articulately defend its wrongness. And as an explanation of why (in a causal sense) I feel the way I do, those arguments aren't very relevant, since my feeling preceded all those arguments (which is not to say that they have not helped reinforce it, but it didn't originate with them.)

In terms of giving an explanation of why I feel the way I do, I guess part of it might be to do with growing up in a country where the death penalty is abolished, and is no longer a live political issue (neither of the two major political parties support reintroducing it, and most of the minor ones don't either.) To me as a child, the death penalty was something alien and macabre, from that strange other world of American movies and TV shows. I was also raised with the importance of the notions of "two wrongs don't make a right", and the importance of forgiveness, and the death penalty seemed alien to both of them.

In another thread about Karl Popper an essay by Popper seems to indicate the same process:
I felt it was wrong long before I could articulately defend its wrongness. (Your words, not Popper's)
Popper spent fourty years trying to articulate something he had strong feelings about in his youth.

It makes me wonder what is going on. We invest a lot of energy convincing ourselves and others that our views are rational and based on reason. But what is the genesis of our ideas? Is it experience or revelation, calculation or inspiration? Maybe someone/thing deals us a hand of cards and that is all we will ever know.

Magellan

[ZackMartin]

It makes me wonder what is going on. We invest a lot of energy convincing ourselves and others that our views are rational and based on reason. But what is the genesis of our ideas? Is it experience or revelation, calculation or inspiration? Maybe someone/thing deals us a hand of cards and that is all we will ever know.

I think the primary drivers of human belief are social and emotional. And that is true of absolutely everyone - liberal or conservative, capitalist or socialist, believer or atheist, Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or whatnot. It's not to say that reason plays no role, but if we are all honest with ourselves, we'd have to admit that reason plays a smaller role than we like to pretend, and social and emotional reasons explain more of our beliefs than we'd like to admit. It's not an argument against any particular belief, it's more of a quasi-sceptical observation about all humans and all belief systems. Quasi-sceptical, not sceptical, because I don't think it makes truth impossible (whether in theory or in practice), but it sure makes it harder than we'd like to think.

And that's not to say that people can never turn against their upbringing or society or culture, and believe something which is radically countercultural for them (of course the concept of "countercultural" is always relative, and what's countercultural for a person from one background is conformist for a person from another - for the minister's child, becoming an atheist would be countercultural; while for the atheist intellectual's child, becoming a minister would be countercultural) But that's always the exception rather than the norm, and in many (not necessarily all) has some explanation in terms of society and culture and emotions - it is usually the more dissatisfied members of society (whether their dissatisfaction be with the external material circumstances of their life, or something more inward and psychological) who step out in strange new directions.

[siliconwafer]

I have heard people propose the following criteria for evaluating a worldview. What do you think?

1. Coherence- Do the essential truth claims of the worldview contradict one another?

2. Correspondence- Do the truth claims of the worldview match reality?

3. Ad Hoc Readjustment- Does the worldview modify its truth claims in an ad hoc manner when exposed to criticism?

4. Verification- Is there a way to find out whether the worldview's truth claims are true or false?

5. Pragmatic Test- Can the worldview in question be consistently lived out? For example, if a worldview teaches that there is no such thing as evil, then it would not pass the pragmatic test because one cannot live consistently with the belief that there is no such thing as evil.

[ZackMartin]

I have heard people propose the following criteria for evaluating a worldview. What do you think?

In principle, they all sound fine. In practice, they are all going to be very slippery, and different people will apply them in different ways, and the same set of principles in the hands of different people will produce very different results. It's easy to see the flaws in the worldviews of others, which we reject; harder to see it from the viewpoint of others, who look at our own worldview, and see many similar things.

[pancreasman]

In principle, they all sound fine. In practice, they are all going to be very slippery, and different people will apply them in different ways, and the same set of principles in the hands of different people will produce very different results. It's easy to see the flaws in the worldviews of others, which we reject; harder to see it from the viewpoint of others, who look at our own worldview, and see many similar things.

Life is slippery. Get used to it.

[robertb]

Just out of curiosity, do any of you on this board have any criteria that you use to discern whether a worldview or belief system is true?

What exactly do you mean by worldview, or belief system? Of course, the "is true" bit kind of opens most things up to question anyway.

I do hear this term, "world view", used in some slightly more specific contexts, like socio/political world view. Is this what you mean?

[ZackMartin]

Life is slippery. Get used to it.

Sure, life is slippery. But let's not make it more slippery than it needs to be.

[ZackMartin]

What exactly do you mean by worldview, or belief system? Of course, the "is true" bit kind of opens most things up to question anyway.

I do hear this term, "world view", used in some slightly more specific contexts, like socio/political world view. Is this what you mean?

I think they mean primarily your belief system with regard to religious or philosophical questions, e.g. atheistic naturalism, or evangelical Christianity, or Theravada Buddhism, or so on. And then, next, what might be viewed as "moral" questions, like abortion or euthanasia or homosexuality, especially insofar as your views on those issues are determined by your views on philosophy and religion. I don't think they mean to exclude political views entirely, but I don't think their primary focus is on political issues, unless they somehow relate back to ethics or philosophy or religion. Really high-level political questions might be "worldview" related, like what is the proper role of government in society; but I don't think "worldview" refers to low-level political issues like whether to support tort reform, or how much money NASA should get, or that sort of thing.

[robertb]

I think they mean primarily your belief system with regard to religious or philosophical questions, e.g. atheistic naturalism, or evangelical Christianity, or Theravada Buddhism, or so on. And then, next, what might be viewed as "moral" questions, like abortion or euthanasia or homosexuality, especially insofar as your views on those issues are determined by your views on philosophy and religion. I don't think they mean to exclude political views entirely, but I don't think their primary focus is on political issues, unless they somehow relate back to ethics or philosophy or religion. Really high-level political questions might be "worldview" related, like what is the proper role of government in society; but I don't think "worldview" refers to low-level political issues like whether to support tort reform, or how much money NASA should get, or that sort of thing.

I see. So basically a description of one's biases, or preconceptions? If that is correct, I can see how this can and probably does, in fact, apply to one's views on even low-level things like tort reform or NASA funding.

[ZackMartin]

I see. So basically a description of one's biases, or preconceptions? If that is correct, I can see how this can and probably does, in fact, apply to one's views on even low-level things like tort reform or NASA funding.

If I asked you what your worldview was, could you give me a brief answer, like a few sentences? Could I infer reliably any of your beliefs on NASA funding from those sentences?

I might summarise my worldview as follows: I believe in God, an afterlife, objective morals. I believe that all reality is fundamentally mental, and physical objects are just patterns in minds. I'm a universalist who believes everyone will be saved; I'm an inclusive monotheist who believes that many "gods" are just names for one God. I don't identify as exclusively Christian, but if I was to identify as Christian, I would be a theological liberal. I am left-wing on social issues, and on economic issues I believe we need to find the right balance between socialism and capitalism. I'm critical of democracy but there is no clearly better alternative currently available. I'm strongly opposed to capital punishment, and not a fan of the criminal justice system in general. I'm opposed to the war on drugs. I think international institutions like the UN or the EU are imperfect but a force for good overall.

Now, have I told you enough to derive my opinions on NASA funding? I actually do have some views on NASA funding, but I doubt my high-level summary of my worldview would be enough for you to work out what my views on NASA funding were. Even if I fleshed out the above high-level summary a lot more, I still probably would not have told you enough for you to guess my views on NASA funding. This is what I mean, that many nuts-and-bolts political views will not be determined primarily based on your worldview.

[robertb]

If I asked you what your worldview was, could you give me a brief answer, like a few sentences? Could I infer reliably any of your beliefs on NASA funding from those sentences?

I am not sure if your ability to surmise my beliefs for any particular thing is really relevant to my actions being influenced by my worldview. Perhaps I misunderstand you.

I might summarise my worldview as follows: I believe in God, an afterlife, objective morals. I believe that all reality is fundamentally mental, and physical objects are just patterns in minds. I'm a universalist who believes everyone will be saved; I'm an inclusive monotheist who believes that many "gods" are just names for one God. I don't identify as exclusively Christian, but if I was to identify as Christian, I would be a theological liberal. I am left-wing on social issues, and on economic issues I believe we need to find the right balance between socialism and capitalism. I'm critical of democracy but there is no clearly better alternative currently available. I'm strongly opposed to capital punishment, and not a fan of the criminal justice system in general. I'm opposed to the war on drugs. I think international institutions like the UN or the EU are imperfect but a force for good overall.

Now, have I told you enough to derive my opinions on NASA funding? I actually do have some views on NASA funding, but I doubt my high-level summary of my worldview would be enough for you to work out what my views on NASA funding were. Even if I fleshed out the above high-level summary a lot more, I still probably would not have told you enough for you to guess my views on NASA funding. This is what I mean, that many nuts-and-bolts political views will not be determined primarily based on your worldview.

I am not following. I do not see how you get from your ability to determine my actions based on a description of my worldview, and the influence my worldview has on my actions.

I am missing something here.

[ZackMartin]

I am not following. I do not see how you get from your ability to determine my actions based on a description of my worldview, and the influence my worldview has on my actions.

I am missing something here.

Are my views on some political issues influenced by my worldview? Surely yes.

Are my views on all political issues influenced by my worldview? I doubt it.

The views I have on NASA funding, someone with a very different worldview could also hold; while other people with a very similar worldview to mine might disagree with me on this topic.

[robertb]

Are my views on some political issues influenced by my worldview? Surely yes.

Are my views on all political issues influenced by my worldview? I doubt it.

The views I have on NASA funding, someone with a very different worldview could also hold; while other people with a very similar worldview to mine might disagree with me on this topic.

Then I am not sure what you mean by a worldview. You earlier gave a list of things that you consider part of your worldview, but I assumed that the list was not comprehensive of what you worldview actually encompassed.

Additionally, I see nothing inherently unreasonable in assuming that people with varying worldviews could not, in fact, agree on a subject like NASA fuding, even if such a position was driven by completely different specifics of either person's worldview. Say one believes that the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge trumps all other concerns, whereas the other believes that it is worth funding due to potential material rewards that might be discovered, for instance.