Criteria for Evaluating Worldviews

[ZackMartin]

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.

I think the idea is that a worldview is supposed to be the key or core or essential things you believe, the key ideas on which your other ideas are based, not a list of every single thing you believe. My attempt to explain my worldview probably wasn't the best though, because I think I listed some things which aren't really key/essential/core ideas to my worldview at all.

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.

We aren't completely disagreeing with each other here. I said "The views I have on NASA funding, someone with a very different worldview could also hold"

However, here's one view on NASA funding I have - I think NASA wastes large amounts of money, but that isn't NASA's fault, it is the fault of the US Congress, with their insistence that money be spent in certain states, on certain subcontractors, etc. As a result, NASA imposes too many irrelevant requirements on their prime contractors (e.g. Boeing, Lockheed Martin); the only way that they can afford to cope is through cost-plus pricing in which the NASA budget pays for all cost overruns. I think the new commercial model, being used with SpaceX and other companies, of only imposing requirements on the capabilities of a craft (e.g. safety, capacity, etc.), and then leaving it up to the contractor to decide based on their best engineering judgement how to achieve those requirements, without decisions like "we have to use solid rocket motors, because ATK needs to get a slice of the pie, because otherwise Congressman X will be angry that his constituents might lose their jobs" - and in exchange, the contractor pays for cost overruns, not NASA - now that would be a much more efficient use of the NASA budget. I think increasing the NASA budget while they waste it so badly is not a good idea; but if they spent it more effectively, I would support increasing it. Now, how is that opinion based on my fundamental/key beliefs? I'm not sure it is. It's probably a sign of how well SpaceX's public and government relations department is - they've convinced me

(BTW, I have to add, as an Australian, I'm rather ashamed my own country spends so little on space. The US has around 15 times the population, and 15 times the economy, of Australia. But we spend far less than 1/15th of US spending on space. To keep up with US funding levels, Australia should be spending $1-2 billion a year on a space program. Yet we don't even have a separate space agency!)

[robertb]

I think the idea is that a worldview is supposed to be the key or core or essential things you believe, the key ideas on which your other ideas are based, not a list of every single thing you believe. My attempt to explain my worldview probably wasn't the best though, because I think I listed some things which aren't really key/essential/core ideas to my worldview at all.

We aren't completely disagreeing with each other here. I said "The views I have on NASA funding, someone with a very different worldview could also hold"

However, here's one view on NASA funding I have - I think NASA wastes large amounts of money, but that isn't NASA's fault, it is the fault of the US Congress, with their insistence that money be spent in certain states, on certain subcontractors, etc. As a result, NASA imposes too many irrelevant requirements on their prime contractors (e.g. Boeing, Lockheed Martin); the only way that they can afford to cope is through cost-plus pricing in which the NASA budget pays for all cost overruns. I think the new commercial model, being used with SpaceX and other companies, of only imposing requirements on the capabilities of a craft (e.g. safety, capacity, etc.), and then leaving it up to the contractor to decide based on their best engineering judgement how to achieve those requirements, without decisions like "we have to use solid rocket motors, because ATK needs to get a slice of the pie, because otherwise Congressman X will be angry that his constituents might lose their jobs" - and in exchange, the contractor pays for cost overruns, not NASA - now that would be a much more efficient use of the NASA budget. I think increasing the NASA budget while they waste it so badly is not a good idea; but if they spent it more effectively, I would support increasing it. Now, how is that opinion based on my fundamental/key beliefs? I'm not sure it is. It's probably a sign of how well SpaceX's public and government relations department is - they've convinced me

(BTW, I have to add, as an Australian, I'm rather ashamed my own country spends so little on space. The US has around 15 times the population, and 15 times the economy, of Australia. But we spend far less than 1/15th of US spending on space. To keep up with US funding levels, Australia should be spending $1-2 billion a year on a space program. Yet we don't even have a separate space agency!)

Yea, I think I understand where you are coming from.

Regarding waste, the US is a bit funny because, on the one hand, they sort of preach this private enterprise mantra, but at the same time large companies spend huge amounts of money lobbying for a piece of the fed cake, as it were. Oh, well.

[firstfloor]

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?

There is for me a distinct difference between, say, a scientific worldview and a religious system of beliefs both of which can be described as “true” but are not true in the same sense; each relying on quite separate fundamental assumptions. There is no physics underlying religious truths of the sort, for example, which shows how water is turned into wine, how dead people are reanimated or how a blood sacrifice defeats sin.

I would always ask whether a thing is consistent or not.

[magellan004]

There is for me a distinct difference between, say, a scientific worldview and a religious system of beliefs both of which can be described as “true” but are not true in the same sense; each relying on quite separate fundamental assumptions. There is no physics underlying religious truths of the sort, for example, which shows how water is turned into wine, how dead people are reanimated or how a blood sacrifice defeats sin.

I would always ask whether a thing is consistent or not.

I think there can only be one true state of the universe, everything.
I am not sure it helps saying (by implication) that science is consistent because science underlies science - other wise some might argue that religion is consistent because (say) Buddha underlies Buddhism.'

Magellan

[firstfloor]

I think there can only be one true state of the universe, everything.
I am not sure it helps saying (by implication) that science is consistent because science underlies science - other wise some might argue that religion is consistent because (say) Buddha underlies Buddhism.'

Magellan

I agree with your first point. What I am suggesting is that systems of reasoning are built on a small set of apparently self evident axioms, the smaller and simpler the better. If sound logic leads to a contradiction, the axiom is false. Religious axioms, the creed, are very high level statements of belief that are not self evident. They survive nonetheless because they are concerned with the promise of events to come and are not testable. The religious “experiment” is never finished.

[magellan004]

I agree with your first point. What I am suggesting is that systems of reasoning are built on a small set of apparently self evident axioms, the smaller and simpler the better. If sound logic leads to a contradiction, the axiom is false. Religious axioms, the creed, are very high level statements of belief that are not self evident. They survive nonetheless because they are concerned with the promise of events to come and are not testable. The religious “experiment” is never finished.

What could be more self-evident than that God (of some form) exists? Even the first person knew about God.
'The promise of events' , as you put it, is well documented - one example is the Bible.

When you claim 'It is not testable' I'm guessing you mean some sort of ruler test. But what would that settle anyway?

Sorry, your attempts at appropriating reason to a version of materialism won't work.
Atheism is only a modern concoction borne out of some sort of social movement.

Magellan

[firstfloor]

Q. What could be more self-evident than God?
A. Anything else.
Atheism is certainly not modern. Logically, it would be as old as theism, but first documented in the sixth century.
By promise I mean that Jews, Christians and Muslims are all waiting for something to happen.

[shunyadragon]

What could be more self-evident than that God (of some form) exists?

I believe that there is an argument for God to exist in 'some form,' but no it is far from self evident.

Even the first person knew about God.
'The promise of events' , as you put it, is well documented - one example is the Bible.

Using the Bible as a witness of Adam, being the first human, and the 'promise of events,' does not support the existence of God as self-evident, nor give any more support for the scriptures than the faithful, in various ways, believe the in the Bible.

Such arguments amount to little more than, 'it is true because the Bible says it is true.'

When you claim 'It is not testable' I'm guessing you mean some sort of ruler test. But what would that settle anyway?

No such claims are not testable, if testable it would give more credence to the claim of 'self-evidence.'

Sorry, your attempts at appropriating reason to a version of materialism won't work.
Atheism is only a modern concoction borne out of some sort of social movement.

Such derogatory 'hand waving' does not contribute to discussions.