okay, I see your point -- some aspects of some world views are not open to being validated (as I had mentioned as well), so yes, utility would be a better word.
OK, cool.
it implies more of a usefulness in mapping new information between {world view} and {unknowable real world}
I completely disagree. Fundamentally disagree. And... I will ignore the comment, because I find that discussion much less interesting than the one we're talking about. We can take
this discussion elsewhere, if necessary. (hoping it's not necessary)
For myself I care about the utility of my world view, and expect no less of others.
Why? I totally don't have this expectation, but I believe many do. Would you be so kind as to elaborate? I don't see the necessity of this at all; but I do think it's a huge stumbling point.
(just realized, ... maybe this is due to your the thought behind your "mapping" statement above. Maybe we have to discuss it after all?
awww.. )
Furthermore... the way I was using utility above is ... in a global, society-level way. I do think that most people choose world views that are useful for themselves. It may explain experiences that they, and they alone, had. These experiences definitely include feelings and the like. A world view that is not "useful" in the "cultural" or "interpersonal" way I mentioned above still may turn out to be the most "useful" world view for that individual.
Ultimately it comes down to interactions, but our interactions are not only with other people.
Now I'm lost again
Are you talking about how the earth really is like one organism, and that interaction is not just with people, but with all things? Or are you talking about something else?