Hi y'all - thanks for the detailed report. I am taking time to study it and will, hopefully, contribute.
On Nov 13, 4:53 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Discussion on the Development of Criteria by which to Evaluate > the Plausability Worldviews > November 10, 2008 > Introduction > This document serves as a summary (sort of like minutes to the > meeting) of the discussion held > last Monday night. The indivuals whose emails are listed below were > present at the meeting: > • Jason ‐‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > • Liz (I’m sorry, I don’t know if I’m remembering her name correctly) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > • Michael ‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > • Debbie ‐‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > • Steve W. ‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > • Brad ‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > • Noah ‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > • Trace ‐ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trace brought notes from Steve who > was in England) > • Steve E. – [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Steve Ethridge began by: > 1. Reviewing that, at the previous meeting, Chris had asked him to > present his idea of > having the group discuss and try to agree on a set of criteria by > which the plausibility of > various worldviews could be evaluated, recognizing that few > conclusions reach the level > of 100% certainty or certitude, but that we should be able to evaulate > them using a > cumulative case, in the same way that a courtroom makes decisions; > i.e., “beyond a > reasonable doubt.” > 2. Confirming that this was still something that the group wanted to > do, to which all were > in agreement. > Overview of the Process > Having gained agreement to procede, Steve then proposed a process for > the discussion to > follow, to which the group agreed. This process consisted of the > following steps: > 1. Brainstorm criteria. Brainstorming meant to just think about and > suggest various > criteria, at first, without (as much as possible) evaulating or > criticizing the criteria > themselves; evaluation was to be a later step in the process. It was > acknowledged that > during the brainstorming process, it would be necessary to define > briefly what was > meant by a criterion, but that the next stage would need to define > them more clearly. > 2 > 2. Define what is meant by each of the criteria in more complete, > clear terms. This stage > would involve more critical evaluation of the criteria. > 3. Critically evaluate the defined criteria to reach consensus on > which to keep. > 4. Then, once the group reached a consensus on the criteria and their > definitions, we > would pick a worldview and subit it to the criteria, followed by the > next world view, and > so on, until all or most of the major ones have been evaluated. (Trace > wisely suggested > that we pick a “neutral” one as our first test case, to which the > group agreed). > Steve suggested that this process may take several weeks at each of > these stages and that the > whole process may take months. Everyone seemed to agree that as long > as the discussion was > fruitful we would continue. > Having gained agreement from the group on this process, Steve then > presented a few, minimal, > assumptions that such a discussion implies, to see if the group could > agree to hold to these > assumptions. These assumptions were, in no particular order: > 1. That there is such a thing as truth. The group acknowledged that > there are various types > or approaches to truth and agreed not to get bogged down in those > details at this point, > but rather to simply agree that, yes, there is “such a thing as > truth.” > 2. That we are all honest, ethical, reasonable people and that the > ethics of belief or > adherence to a worldview obligate us to search for criteria > (standards) by which to > judge worldviews; i.e., standards that can be used to discern the > truth of a worldview. > 3. That we should not rule out, a‐priori, the possibility that there > could be more than one > valid worldview. Although we may end up concluding that there is only > one valid > worldview, our process is to give a “fair hearing” to all of them > (again, as in a > courtroom). This requires us to evaluate the belief‐worthiness of the > various > worldviews as objectively as possible, meaning that we each have to > temporarily > suspend our own presuppositional bias toward our own personally held > worldview for > purposes of this discussion. Not that we’re giving up our acceptance > of that world view > in our own minds but rather that we, as much as possible, acknowledge > our own biases > and try to hold them in suspension. > Having gained agreement on these basic assumptions, we then began the > brainstorming > process. What follows is a listing of criteria that were suggested by > the group during the > brainstormin session. > Brainstormed Criteria > These are verbatim comments that I wrote down in my notes as each one > was mentioned. > These are numbered below in the order that they came up in the > disucssion. These numbers > 3 > are referred to later in this document for reference. As you read > these you may recognize that > some of the criteria, themselves, have worldview implications or > presuppositions, but > remember that the evaulation of these comes later. You will also > notice that there may be > some redundancy or overlap among some of the suggested criteria. > 1. The Bible is truth. > 2. Emperical > 3. Correspondance/fit/correlation with our experience/the real world > 4. Explanatory – worldview seems to be capable of explaining all > experience or, > where it isn’t, the world view admits that some other worldview covers > another > area. > 5. It can’t violate something that takes our own experience to grasp. > 6. Logic – an argument offered as evidence must be sound. Conclusion > must follow > unavoidably from premises which must be true. > 7. Falsifiable – possible to think of evidence to prove false > 8. Comprehensiveness ‐‐ the scope and range of the theory in terms of > how allencompassing > it is. Evidence must be exhaustible and all available must be > considered. > 9. Have honesty – evidence evaluated without self deception > 10. Replicability – If evidence could be logically explained as > coincidental it should be > repeatable to same result. > 11. Sufficiency – (1) burden of proof rests on the claimant; (2) > extraordinary claims > requires extraordinary evidence; (2) hearsay evidence is always > inadequate. > 12. To have honestly looked at other peoples’ view points. > 13. The statement has to be free of alterior motives, such as wealth, > personal gain, > to support a particular secular or religious ideology. > 14. Objective – tangible, verifiable, evidence. > 15. Independent confirmation of the statement from other groups. > 16. Important that it does not deny subjective experience. > 17. Stand up to reasonable attacks by multiple independent groups. > 18. Parsimony – simplicity, provided that the world view has equal > explantory > power. The theory or worlview has a certain leanness to it, while > still having > sufficient insight or explanatory power. > 19. No appeal to an authority figure. Reality is the ultimate > authority. > 20. Consistency ‐‐ the necessary condition that any two essential > statements within > the worldview that are necessary for adherence to the worldview are > broadly > and logically possible, taken together with respect to one another > 21. Coherence – a system of beliefs, claims or statements must stick > together and > offer mutual support to one another without difficulty > 22. Livability ‐‐ the property of being able to live one’s life with > success and with at > least a bit of happiness and hope (i.e., the test of which worldview > is easier to > believe, trust in, hope for or live by). (Note: This is a pragmatic > criterion, not in > the utilitarian sense of the pragmatic theory of truth [i.e., it’s > true because it > works] but rather in the different sense that it works because it is > true.) > 4 > 23. Predictability ‐‐ the ability of the theory/worldview to > accurately predict future > occurrences. > 24. Fruitfullness – the test of how well the theory/worldview helps > you to create > new hypotheses which extends our knowledge of the natural world, of > human > beings, etc. > These, without yet being critiqued, were the criteria that resulted > from our brain storming > session. The next part of our discussion was to begin to define the > criteria better. In doing this, > we acknowleged that many of these ideas, as listed, had overlapping > meaning and that our goal > should be to develop a short list of criteria (maybe 6 to 12) so that > the process of evaulating > worldviews against the criteria doesn’t become to unwieldy. We also > recognized that it was > difficult to define criteria without critiquing them and difficult to > critique criteria without > defining them. So we agreed to discuss how we might simulataneously > categorize these criteria > as a way of helping to define them and to critique them in the > process. The next section is the > result of that discussion. > Definition and Critique of the Criteria > The following were some major points of discussion before the group > agreed to a shorter > (categorized, better defined) list of criteria: > • The question was raised as to, when it comes to the criteria of > correspondene or fit with > the real world, what types of data (e.g., scientific or philosophical > diciplines) this criteria > should entail. It was agreed that cosmology, astronomy, archelogy, and > history (subject > to further discussion about how to evaluate historical data), at a > minimum, would all be > valid to consider. (Others may still later need to be added to this > list). > • The concern was raised that some of the criteria suggested during > the brainstoming > (e.g., emperical, verification, the Bible is truth) were, themselves, > worldviews and > should be eliminated. > It was acknowledged that, yes, if taken to the extreme ‐‐ for > example, if by > “verification” we mean the verification principle that there is no > meaning outside > of that which cannot be verified by one of the five senses ‐‐ then, it > is a > worldvivew. > But that is not the same as saying the ability to verifiy some > aspect of a > worldview is one of many criteria to be used in weighing the > cumulative case to > conclude whether it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e., not > that > everything within the worldview must be verifiable). > In this portion of the discussion we agreed that it is important to > put all of our > biases and presuppositions on “common ground.” This means, for > example, that > the conclusion, “the Bible is truth,” and by logical extension, all > other > conclusions about ultimate truth (e.g., empiricism is the only way to > know truth, > 5 > or rationalism is the only way to know truth) should be suspended > until a > worldview has been evaluated by the criteria. After all, such > conclusions are > what we can reasonably state only after having agreed on the criteria > and having > evaluated worldviews against those criteria. In other words, the > question is, > regarding any such conclusion, whether there is enough cumulative > weight on > the set of criteria, taken as a whole, to warrant adherence to that > particular > worldview.1 > This discussion also led to the acknowlegement that our various > biases are > unavoidable in such discussions so we should all be alert to our own > and others’ > biases and politely and respectfully hold each other accountable to > remaining > objective during the process. > • The group discussed the suggested criteria of replicability (# 10) > and decided that not all > aspects of a worldview are necessarily repeatable, and we agreed that > the criterion of > predictability (of future events) sufficiently encompasses that idea. > • We discussed and agreed that “hearsay evidence” (second hand word‐of‐ > mouth) is not > the same as first hand “testimony,” so we eliminated that as a > criteria ‐‐ but, with the > understanding that testimony itself needs to be critically evaluated > based on the subcriteria > of: two or more witnesses, the credibility of the witness in terms of > how close in > time and proximity the witness was to the event testified about, and > the reliability of > the witness. > • We agreed that the proposed criteria of “to have honestly looked at > other people’s > viewpoints” (#12) is a part of this whole process rather than a > criteria itself so, for this > reason, this was eliminated as a criteria. > • We had much discussion about the criteria of “that it does not deny > subjective > experience” (#16) and “livability” (#22), recognizing that these were > highly subjective. > But, after much discussion we all agreed to keep “livability” as a > criterion so long as we > keep in mind the subjectivity of this criterion. > • Regarding the suggested criteria of “logic,” (#6), we discussed and > agreed that there are > different types of logic (e.g., propositional, logical consistency/not > contradictory on > essential points necessary to warrant belief, formal logic, informal > logic) and that, > therefore, this criteria was a sub‐component of the criteria of > “consistency” (#20). > 1 My own comments here: (a) In other words, this process is an > inductive one of discovery, not a deductive one of > presuppositional dogmatism for any worldview; (b) this should not mean > that we cannot study the Bible to assess > whether something, including the Bible itself, is true, just as it > should not mean that we cannot attempt to verify > something through one of our five senses to assess whether it is true. > But it does mean that we should not to > begin with that presupposition as a starting point for purposes of our > discussion. > 6 > Through these and other less substantive points of discussion, we > agreed, tentatively, for > further discussion at our next meeting, to collapse the brain‐stormed > criteria into the following > definitional categories. > Criteria > After much discussion we agreed (tentatively) that the all of the many > criteria that were > suggested during our brainstorming session could be categorized into > the following seven > criteria. > 1. Correspondence/fit to the real world (#3). We agreed that this > criteria encompasses > the following that were suggested: > a. Empirical (#2 and #5) > b. Falsifiable (#7) > c. Stands up to critique from multiple independent groups (#17) > d. Independent confirmation of the statement from other groups (#15) > e. No appeal to authority figure (#19)2 > f. Objective/unbiased, verifiable, free from anterior motives (# 14, > #13)3 > g. Sufficiency (#11) > h. No appeal to authority (#19) > The definition of this one, again, is that the worldview corresponds > with our > experience/the real world. > 2. Comprehensiveness (#21). This one encompasses the suggested > criteria of explanatory > power (#4). The criterion of comprehensiveness is defined as how all‐ > encompassing the > theory/worldview is. > 3. Consistency (#20). We agreed that this criterion encompassed the > criteria of logic (#6). > The definition of this one, again, is that any two statements within > the worldview that > are necessary for adherence to the worldview are broadly and logically > possible, taken > together with respect to one another. > 2 Just my own observation here for further discussion: it seems to me, > that “independent confirmation of the > statement from other groups (#15) and “no appeal to authority > figure” (#19) are logically contradictory. I propose > that we eliminate these two elements from the category of > correspondence. By the same token, it seems to me > that “stands up to critique from multiple independent groups” (#17) is > an appeal to authority and should therefore > also be eliminated. > 3 In my notes I had Objectivity/Unbiased both as an element of the > criterion of correspondence and as a separate > criterion from this stage in the discussion. For discussion purposes > in our next meeting, I am leaving it only as an > element of correspondence. The reason is that, after considering this > further, it seemed to me that it was similar to > the one about having “honesty – evidence evaluated without self > deception” (#9) and we’re striving to arrive at a > short list. If anyone feels differently about this we can discuss this > further at our next meeting. > 7 > 4. Coherence (#21). The definition of this one, again, is that a > system of beliefs, claims, or > statements must stick together and offer mutual support to one another > without > difficulty. > 5. Predictability (#23) – We agreed that this one encompasses > replicability (#10). Its > definition, again, is the ability of the theory/worldview to > accurately predict future > occurrences. > 6. Simplicity (#18). The definition of this one, again, is that the > theory/worldview has a > leanness to it, while still having sufficient insight or explanatory > power. > 7. Livability (#22) – With the caveat for all of us to keep in mind > that this one is perhaps > more subjective than the others, we all agreed to keep this. This is > defined, again, as > property of being able to live one’s life with success and with at > least a bit of happiness > and hope (i.e., the test of which worldview is easier to believe, > trust in, hope for or live > by). > As you can see, these seven criteria encompass all 24 of the suggested > criteria that resulted > from our brainstorming session, with the exception of the criteria of > fruitfulness (#24) (defined > as how well the theory/worldview helps you to create new hypotheses > which extend our > knowledge of the natural world, human beings, etc.) It may have just > been an oversight from > my notes, but I would like to propose that we keep the criteria of > “fruitfulness” (#24) as well, > which would give us 8 total criteria. > Next Steps > 1. We agreed that our task between now and next week would be to think > about these > further so that next week we can hopefully gain final consensus on our > criteria. > 2. We also discussed and agreed, tentatively, that when we reach > consensus about our > criteria we would pick, as our first, neutral worldview test case, the > worldview of > pantheism, but that may still be a few weeks away. > 3. I would also like to propose that between now and next week that we > begin to think > about (and be prepared to discuss next week) a list of questions that > we can ask as way > of applying the criteria of comprehensiveness (which includes > explanatory power). In > other words, what would a reasonably warranted worldview have to > explain in order to > be comprehensive? > I look forward to seeing you all next week. > Steve Ethridge > 331‐70267 (cell) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Nov 11, 3:56 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote:> At Occam's, we are discussing how to evalute a worldview. Some > > members of the Occam's group requested that we not post or discuss > > these criteria on this Occam's site. Therefore, I will be posting the > > criteria on the Memphis Freethought Alliance google.com site (website > > below). > > > During these google.com discussions, please use common courtesy toward > > the individuals in which you are engaged in conversation with while > > examining these very emotional topics. Critical analysis of any ideas > > is strongly encouraged. Ridicule of the person (no matter how > > ridiculous you feel his or her ideas are) is strongly discouraged and > > may lead to being banned from the MFA google.com group. > > > The leader of the discussion at Occam's planned on having the criteria > > emailed on Wednesday (11/12/08). > > > Memphis Freethought Alliance Discussion > > Grouphttp://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance > > > I am looking forward to a fruitful and enlightening discussion. > > > Take care, > > Jason --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
