(July 26, 2013 at 6:28 am)max-greece Wrote: Agree entirely - but what is relevant? The problem is not as easy to solve as it appears and we end up back at the OP's point which is essentially the relativity of reality.
I have to say I do not know the answer to this other than at some instinctive level that is hard to put into words.
What's relevant is the consistent application of the rules of logic and evidence.
To elaborate, consider how Wandering Soul regards the different worldviews - she thinks of all of them as being "coherent, cogent, meaningful, rational and empirically verifiable". However, these attributes are interdependent. I do not believe that any of the current worldviews satisfy all the given criteria. Only one worldview - that has an accurate one-on-one mapping with the reality it represents - would satisfy all the conditions.
However, right now, if we have a worldview that's coherent and rational, but doesn't match up with this reality, it won't be empirically verifiable. If we arbitrarily make up the standards of evidence, then that view won't be rational. If we use different standards for different objects, then the view won't be coherent. So, right now, all the different worldviews we have match the hypothetical ideal and accurate one to different degrees - some come close, others don't. And the opinion of a person on how well their own worldview fits this criteria is a part of their worldview - so including that in the judgment would be ridiculous.
