David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Metaphilosophy 43 (3):306-347 (2012)
Philosophy lacks criteria to evaluate its philosophical theories. To fill this gap, this essay introduces nine criteria to compare worldviews, classified in three broad categories: objective criteria (objective consistency, scientificity, scope), subjective criteria (subjective consistency, personal utility, emotionality), and intersubjective criteria (intersubjective consistency, collective utility, narrativity). The essay first defines what a worldview is and exposes the heuristic used in the quest for criteria. After describing each criterion individually, it shows what happens when each of them is violated. From the criteria, it derives assessment tests to compare and improve different worldviews. These include the is-ought, ought-act, and is-act first-order tests; the critical and dialectical second-order tests; the mixed-questions and first-second-order third-order tests; and the we-I, we-it, and it-I tests. The essay then applies these criteria and tests to a concrete example, comparing the Flying Spaghetti Monster deity with Intelligent Design. For another application, it draws more general fruitful suggestions for the dialogue between science and religion
|Keywords||philosophical method philosophical criteria Flying Spaghetti Monster definition of philosophy dialogue between science and religion Intelligent Design mission of philosophy evaluation standards in philosophy cognitive axiology worldview comparison worldview assessment cognitive values comprehensive worldview task of philosophy coherent worldview scope of philosophy|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Thomas Aquinas (1274). Summa Theologica. Hayes Barton Press.
Archie J. Bahm (1953). Philosophy. New York, Wiley.
Jeremy Bentham (1780/2007). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Dover Publications.
C. D. Broad (1958). Philosophy (I). Inquiry 1 (1-4):99 – 129.
Citations of this work BETA
Clément Vidal (2010). Computational and Biological Analogies for Understanding Fine-Tuned Parameters in Physics. Foundations of Science 15 (4):375 - 393.
Similar books and articles
Pavel N. Prudkov (2003). Connectionism, ACT-R, and the Principle of Self-Organization. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):616-617.
Brown Grier (1975). Prediction, Explanation, and Testability as Criteria for Judging Statistical Theories. Philosophy of Science 42 (4):373-383.
Hannes Leitgeb (2013). Criteria of Identity: Strong and Wrong. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 (1):61-68.
Elizabeth H. Wolgast (1964). Wittgenstein and Criteria. Inquiry 7 (1-4):348 – 366.
Mark Addis (1995). Criteria. Journal of Philosophical Research 20:139-174.
Alan Sidelle (1995). A Semantic Account of Rigidity. Philosophical Studies 80 (1):69 - 105.
Geoff Moore, Richard Slack & Jane Gibbon (2009). Criteria for Responsible Business Practice in Smes: An Exploratory Case of U.K. Fair Trade Organisations. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 89 (2):173 - 188.
David Davies (1998). McAllister's Aesthetics in Science: A Critical Notice. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12 (1):25 – 32.
Michael P. Nelson (1993). A Defense of Environmental Ethics: A Reply to Janna Thompson. Environmental Ethics 15 (3):245-257.
Xiaoqiang Han (2009). The Criterion or Criteria of Change. Metaphysica 10 (2):149-156.
Added to index2012-04-12
Total downloads16 ( #98,129 of 1,096,600 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #50,170 of 1,096,600 )
How can I increase my downloads?