The Worldview Pyramid

[Nielsio]

This is how a worldview looks like:

http://home.student.utwente.nl/n.f.l.vanderlinden/worldview_pyramid_sm_2.gif

Reality is causal, which is the fundamental basis of our understanding of the world around us.

The system that describes how matter behaves is logic. The cornerstone of logic is consistency.

The next level, which builds on logic, are principles, morality and values.

And the final level is real world observations and predictions, and the actions we undertake; which are all supported by our basic principles and values.

In application:
Most people's principles are very strong. If they are presented with observations or predictions that do not coincide with them, they won't accept them as valid. In the case of observations, people will say that other factors are in play, interfering with the results. If people are shown predictions, they will either agree or disgree with them based on their principles. Or: people's predictions will be higly influenced by their principles, rather than through a rational analysis.

If principles aren't consistent, they are invalid (false morality). If people do act in reality through invalid principles however, reality will catch up on them: their predictions will turn out false, and their actions can have devistating effects (depending on the scale).

How do people's principles, morality and values come about? They come about through their environment, which shapes them, and especially in their formative years and through the strongest relationships and experiences they have in this time (parents, family, culture, school, media).

If one argues with someone else who has different principles, and is trying to change their principles through predictions and observations (effects), this will not work, because people's principles have the strongest influence on how effects are viewed.
So if it is understood that another person has different principles, then they should be analyzed and checked for concistency. Exposing principles as invalid is the most powerful way and usually the only effective way in dealing with differing worldviews. Ofcourse, you should make sure that someone is respecting logic or else the entire exercise is doomed.

-

[ QUOTE ]
How does the inferential knowledge gained at the top layer, inform or revise the lower layers? In otherwords, Is there a feedback mechanism?

[/ QUOTE ]

They should coincide. So, yes, in order to find truth, we need to look at any discrepancies. But as far as thought goes, many people don't follow this method, which is a thing we should understand.


[ QUOTE ]
Does your model offer a consistent linkage between the empirical (descriptive), and the ethical (prescriptive)? Is it reasonable to assume that what is, ought to be?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any thinking that doesn't follow the model is flawed. So I'd say it's pretty prescriptive. But also, it attempts to show how people's worldviews work, even if flawed (false principles).


[ QUOTE ]
Isn't this quote, making the case for a subjective understanding of empirical reality?

[ QUOTE ]
If one argues with someone else who has different principles, and is trying to change their principles through predictions and observations (effects), this will not work, because people's principles have the strongest influence on how effects are viewed.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't. It's descriptive about behaviour. For instance, if someone has a principle that virtue lies in believing something without evidence, then certainly no amount of evidence will change their principles!!

[J. Stew]

I agree reality is causal, but it seems as though you neglect to mention that a person's worldview evolves directionally over the course of experience from pre-rational to rational to post/trans-rational, kid to college to old wise man. . . Each stage transcends the previous stage resulting in an evolving holonic interpretive perspective, including that which was transcended as well as acting from the stage that resultingly includs all which one has experientially encompassed thus far. Like rings inside a tree trunk, the worldview encompasses the ego-centric view, the ethno-centric view, and moves beyond while still including that which it is beyond, the evolution of consciousness.

You say "the cornerstone of logic is consistency", and I agree though I might rephrase to say that consistency is the logic of the cornerstone of the Universe. As in, the Universe came into existence and has since, consistently and dynamically, evolved itself into more complexity which is evident by the evolution of life here on earth, where humans have reached the capacity to look back at the Universe through It's own eyes.

So I would say that the generic structure of the worldview is representative of that stage, but it is a stage in which inclusion of all 'smaller', less complex characteristics are harbored, which logically leads to an infinite possibilities for expansion, transcendence, 'higher' stages of evolution, not just the dominance of a worldview stage which becomes stagnant unless it is moved on. Not sure if that's where you were goin with this but it seemed as though your stance on worldview was somewhat dominant or better instead of inclusive of that which preceded the worldview.

[Hoi Polloi]

[ QUOTE ]
The system that describes how matter behaves is logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't physics the system that describes how matter behaves? How does logic derive the inverse squared law of gravity, for example. Or the law of inertia?

[Hoi Polloi]

Logic cannot pre-exist principles. Is not Aristotle's law of non-contradiction upon which he founds his logic a princple?

You really must master Kant's Critique of Pure Reason before you embarck on a project like this. It will save you a lot time and false steps.

[MadTiger]

LOGICAL?

a possible FYP? for him?

[Hoi Polloi]

Possibly. But just as non-Euclidian geometries have been founded on principles and axioms different from those posited by Euclid, I would think that; 1) principles and axioms still preceed meaning (i.e. what logical means) and, 2) non-Aristotlean logics could be (and may well have been) founded that do not adhere to the principle of non-contradiction.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The system that describes how matter behaves is logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't physics the system that describes how matter behaves? How does logic derive the inverse squared law of gravity, for example. Or the law of inertia?

[/ QUOTE ]

Physics is a higher order of description which builds on logic, which in turn builds on causality. For instance, gravity attracts or it repels, but not both. Or: gravity exists or it doesn't. You can't have inconsistent laws. You see, it's build on logic.

The physics level doesn't get a special place in the model (it's above logic and below principles), because the existing problems with principles, morality and values is consistency, so that's what I point out.

[DCWildcat]

[ QUOTE ]

Most people's principles are very strong. If they are presented with observations or predictions that do not coincide with them, they won't accept them as valid. In the case of observations, people will say that other factors are in play, interfering with the results. If people are shown predictions, they will either agree or disgree with them based on their principles. Or: people's predictions will be higly influenced by their principles, rather than through a rational analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very strong claim that I believe demands a little more writing. Empirical data from social psychology suggests that there are many factors contributing to someone's chance to change a belief (for example, as you mention later, showing a belief is invalid is a great way to make a change). Also, people display great variability in this particular behavior--some (academics, for example), are much more willing to change beliefs when confronted with a reason to do so than others (Southern Baptist minister). The combination of the aforementioned factors, specifically between-person variability, makes me think your generalized statements about humankind's resistance to principle change are too strong and too generalized to be valid.

To say there's a sort of inertia effect in people's beliefs seems to be valid to me, though.

[KaneKungFu123]

This explains why religion sticks so well, it is not based on logic, therefore it is impossible to logically disprove.

[RagnarPirate]

1. valid axioms have meaning, because any attempt to dispute them is self-contradictory. For example existence exists. Any attempt to disprove this requires the use of this axiom. You may invent a philosophy with invalid axioms (many have) but it does not explain the world that we live in.

2. true. but, again they do accurately describe this universe.