parsomnium writes:
Try to see this as a relative problem. Since we are limited by our senses, an absolute worldview is unattainable for anyone. But when two worldviews are contrasted, and the evidence from both is mutually evaluated, one of the two may need to deny more of the other's evidence than vice versa. The one that has to do more denying could be regarded as the lesser worldview. It all comes down to bookkeeping
It all comes down to the constraints within which the game is played, I think. If a persons worldview is one whereby "how objectively demonstrable the view is evidenced" is the measure of greater or lesser, then the worldview which is best supported by the objective evidence 'wins'. But the basis for deciding that "how objectively demonstratable the view is evidenced" is the absolute constraint within which the game is played, would have to be established in order to say one particular world view is lesser. Failing that, the best one can say is that it could be regarded as the 'lesser' worldview within the constraints chosen. Seeing as it is relative to something not yet established.
Since we are limited by our senses, an absolute worldview is unattainable for anyone.
This is a statement of someone who considers themselves limited to their senses. Not of someone who isn't. Consequently, a venture in to absolute worldview cannot be so simply excluded.
™ Version 4.2