Hi y'all - PS thanks to Tracy for reading my scribbled notes out.
On Nov 17, 3:16 am, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
>
> ...
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
