A Systematic Framework for Exploring Worldviews and Its Generalization as a Multi-Purpose Inquiry Framework
Abstract
:1. Introduction: Worldviews in the Context of Systemology
2. General Background on Worldviews
2.1. The Meaning and Importance of Worldviews
There are some people—and I am one of them—who think that the most practical and important thing about a man is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy. We think that for a general about to fight an enemy it is important to know the enemy’s numbers, but still more important to know the enemy’s philosophy. We think the question is not whether the theory of the cosmos affects matters, but whether in the long run anything else affects them[27] (pp. 15–16).
2.2. The Complexity and Dynamics of Worldviews
2.3. Paradigms
- A comparison between the paradigms of Traditional, Modern, Postmodern, and Integrative Worldviews [29];
- A comparison between the paradigms of Christian Theism, Secular Postmodernism, Pantheistic Monism, Islamic Theism [30];
- A comparison between different paradigmatic tenets regarding the nature of knowledge, namely from the perspectives of Idealism, Physicalism, Emergentism, Constructivism, Intuitionism, Theism, and Critical Realism [31].
3. The “Worldview Inquiry Framework”
3.1. Development of the Worldview Inquiry Framework
- a worldview is a system and hence is most appropriately studied from a system perspective;
- systems science and systems thinking contain many methodologies for which consideration of aspects of worldviews is essential irrespective of the problem context, so systemology provides an active and diverse community with whom to engage; and
- systemology is a transdiscipline, and hence it is part of its objectives to develop tools that can be applied across disciplines and contexts.
3.2. High-Level Overview of the Worldview Inquiry Framework
- for systemic intervention, the system practitioner might be primarily interested in what stakeholders value, in which case the analysis will start with axiology;
- for teamwork, the leader might be interested in each member’s perspective on their role in the team, so would start their inquiry with praxeology; and
- for frontier research, the scientist might be primarily interested in how new theoretical insights might impact the scientific paradigm and hence would start their inquiry with ontology or metaphysics.
3.3. Comparison with Other Worldview Models
3.4. An Extended Worldview Inquiry Framework
- a comprehensive but succinct framework on which to base such surveys;
- a consistent set of concepts for formulating worldview questions and documenting beliefs.
4. The World as a System, Modelled in Terms of the Worldview Inquiry Framework
- (a)
- Because the worldview system strives towards coherence, we can understand the reasons for the stability of worldviews—their systemicity entails that they would resist incorporation of ideas or beliefs that do not fit in in a way that preserves the existing (approximate) coherence.
- (b)
- We can understand why paradigm shifts are so rare and so dramatic. Being a deep conviction held by a group, paradigmatic worldviews are even more stable and resistant to change than individual worldviews. When the total body of available and credible (but worldview challenging) evidence becomes too large to easily ignore or credibly reject, and so has to be incorporated, the systemicity of the worldview/paradigm ensures a ‘ripple effect’, so that change propagates throughout the worldview/paradigm system to establish a new balance that renders the whole coherent again (as described in Thomas Kuhn’s works [10,11]).
- (c)
- From a systems point of view, the last point explains why paradigm change is the most powerful leverage point for bringing about change for a group, as proposed by Donella Meadows [73].
5. The “General Inquiry Framework”
5.1. Generalizing the Worldview Inquiry Framework
5.2. General Questions for a General Inquiry Framework
5.3. Adapting the General Inquiry Framework for Different Contexts
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References and Note
- Checkland, P. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Jackson, M.C. Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK; Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Hall, M.L.W. Merging the World Views of Systems Science and Human Values. In Critical Issues in Systems Theory and Practice; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1995; pp. 131–135. [Google Scholar]
- Maqsood, T.; Finegan, A.D.; Walker, D.H. Five Case Studies Applying Soft Systems Methodology to Knowledge Management; Queensland University of Technology: Brisbane, Australia, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Bergvall-Kareborn, B.; Mirijamdotter, A.; Basden, A. Basic principles of SSM modeling: An examination of CATWOE from a soft perspective. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 2004, 17, 55–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sillitto, H.; Martin, J.; Griego, R.; McKinney, D.; Arnold, E.; Godfrey, P.; Dori, D.; Krob, D.; Jackson, S. What do we mean by “system”?—System beliefs and worldviews in the INCOSE community. In Proceedings of the INCOSE International Symposium, Washington, DC, USA, 7–12 July 2018; p. 17. [Google Scholar]
- Sillitto, H. Fellows Initiative on Definition of the terms “System” and “SE”. Presented at the Systems Science Working Group during the International Workshops 2018 (IW18) of the International Council on Systems Engineering, Jacksonville, FL, USA, 20–23 January 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Kahneman, D. Maps of Bounded Rationality: A Perspective on Intuitive Judgment and Choice. In Les Prix Nobel: The Nobel Prizes 2002; Frängsmyr, T., Ed.; Nobel Foundation: Stockholm, Sweden, 2003; pp. 449–489. [Google Scholar]
- Naugle, D. Worldview: The History of a Concept; Eerdmans: Cambridge, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Kuhn, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Kuhn, T. The Road since Structure; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Ashman, K.M.; Baringer, P.S. After the Science Wars; Routledge: London, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Midgley, G. Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic and participative methods. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the ISSS, Tokyo, Japan, 5–10 August 2007; Volume 51. [Google Scholar]
- Midgley, G. Towards a New Framework for Evaluating Systemic and Participative Methods. Joint Seminar of the UK Academy for Information Systems (UKAIS) in Conjunction with the Information Systems, Organisations and Society (ISOS) Research Group, University of Salford, Held on the 1 June 2011 at the University of Manchester, Salford, UK, 2011, Volume 51. Available online: http://www.slideshare.net/ukais/evaluating-participativesystemicmethodssalford2011 (accessed on 14 May 2013).
- Burns, J. What is Beyond the Edge of the Known World? J. Conscious. Stud. 2003, 10, 7–28. [Google Scholar]
- Kelly, E.F.; Kelly, E.W.; Crabtree, A.; Gauld, A.; Grosso, M.; Greyson, B. Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century; Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, MD, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Treffert, D. Extraordinary People: An Exploration of the Savant Syndrome; Bantam: New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Haufe, C. Why do funding agencies favor hypothesis testing? Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. Part A 2013, 44, 363–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwab, K. The Fourth Industrial Revolution; Portfolio Penguin: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Kant, I.; Gregor, M.J. Critique of Judgment; Hackett: Indianapolis, IN, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Hiebert, P.G. Transforming Worldviews: An Anthropological Understanding of How People Change; Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, MI, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Sire, J.W. Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept; IVP Academic: Downers Grove, IL, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Emmons, R.A. The Psychology of Ultimate Concerns: Motivation and Spirituality in Personality, 1st ed.; Guilford Press: London, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- James, W. The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature, being the Gifford Lectures on Natural Religion Delivered at Edinburgh in 1901–1902; [cited edition is 36th impression published in 1928]; Longmans Green: London, UK, 1902. [Google Scholar]
- Danesh, H.B.; Clarke-Habibi, S. The Concept of Worldview. In Education for Peace Curriculum Manual; EFP-International Press: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2007; pp. 29–60. [Google Scholar]
- Wallace, W.A. The Modeling of Nature: Philosophy of Science and the Philosophy of Nature in Synthesis; The Catholic University of America Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Chesterton, G.K. Heretics; John Lane Co.: New York, NY, USA, 1905. [Google Scholar]
- Wilby, J.M.; Rousseau, D.; Midgley, G.; Drack, M.; Billingham, J.; Zimmermann, R. Philosophical Foundations for the Modern Systems Movement. In Proceedings of the 17th Conversation of the International Federation for Systems Research, St. Magdalena/Linz, Austria, 27 April–2 May 2014; pp. 32–42. [Google Scholar]
- De Witt, A.; de Boer, J.; Hedlund, N.; Osseweijer, P. A new tool to map the major worldviews in the Netherlands and USA, and explore how they relate to climate change. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 63, 101–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Samples, K.R. A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test; Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Rousseau, D. Systems Philosophy and the Unity of Knowledge. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 2014, 31, 146–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hedlund-de Witt, A.; De Boer, J.; Boersema, J.J. Exploring inner and outer worlds: A quantitative study of worldviews, environmental attitudes, and sustainable lifestyles. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 37, 40–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halsmer, D. Application of the “Engineering Mindset” for Worldview Evaluation. In Proceedings of the ASEE Midwest Section Annual Meeting, Tulsa, OK, USA, 17–19 September 2008; p. 12. [Google Scholar]
- Witt, A. Climate Change and the Clash of Worldviews: An Exploration of How to Move Forward in a Polarized Debate. Zygon 2015, 50, 906–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Checkland, P.B.; Davies, L. The Use of the Term “Weltanschauung” in Soft Systems Methodology. J. Appl. Syst. Anal. 1986, 13, 109–115. [Google Scholar]
- Sire, J.W. The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog; IVP Academic: Downers Grove, IL, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Smart, N. Worldviews: Cross Cultural Explorations of Human Beliefs, 3rd ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Vidal, C. Wat is een wereldbeeld? [What is a worldview?]. In Nieuwheid Denken. De Wetenschappen en het Creatieve Aspect van de Werkelijkheid [Novel thoughts: Science and the Creative Aspect of Reality]; van Belle, H., van der Veken, J., Eds.; Acco Uitgeverij: Leuven, Belgium, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Aerts, D.; Apostel, L.; De Moor, B.; Hellemans, S.; Maex, E.; Van Belle, H.; Van der Veken, J. Worldviews: From Fragmentation to Integration; VUB Press: Brussels, Belgium, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Funk, K. What Is a Worldview? 2001. Available online: http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~funkk/Personal/worldview.html (accessed on 1 June 2016).
- Carvalho, J.J. Overview of the Structure of a Scientific Worldview. Zygon 2006, 41, 113–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elohim, J.-L. A General Systems WELTANSCHAUUNG (Worldview). 2000. Available online: http://www.isss.org/weltansc.htm (accessed on 20 January 2016).
- Glennan, S. Whose Science and Whose Religion? Reflections on the Relations between Scientific and Religious Worldviews. Sci. Educ. 2007, 18, 797–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leontiev, D.A. Approaching Worldview Structure with Ultimate Meanings Technique. J. Humanist. Psychol. 2007, 47, 243–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vidal, C. An Enduring Philosophical Agenda. Worldview Construction as a Philosophical Method. 2007. Available online: http://cogprints.org/6048/ (accessed on 25 June 2012).
- Vidal, C. Metaphilosophical criteria for worldview comparison. Metaphilosophy 2012, 43, 306–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolters, A.M. On the idea of worldview and its relation to philosophy. In Stained Glass: Worldviews and Social Science; Marshall, P.A., Griffioen, S., Mouw, R.J., Eds.; University Press of America: Lanham, MD, USA, 1989; pp. 14–25. [Google Scholar]
- Malham, P.B. Investigating the Structure and Functions of Worldview Assumptions. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Goldberg, R.M. How our worldviews shape our practice. Confl. Resolut. Q. 2009, 26, 405–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rousseau, D. Reconciling Spirituality with the Naturalistic Sciences: A Systems-Philosophical Perspective. J. Stud. Spiritual. 2014, 4, 174–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rousseau, D. Foundations and a Framework for Future Waves of Systemic Inquiry. Presented at the 22nd European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research (EMCSR 2014), 2014, Vienna, Austria. In Proceedings of the EMCSR 2014: Civilisation at the Crossroads—Response and Responsibility of the Systems Sciences, Book of Abstracts, Vienna, Austria, 30 March–1 April 2016; Wilby, J.M., Blachfellner, S., Hofkirchner, W., Eds.; EMCSR: Vienna, Austria, 2014; pp. 428–434. [Google Scholar]
- Rousseau, D.; Billingham, J.; Wilby, J.M.; Blachfellner, S. The synergy between General Systems Theory and the General Systems Worldview. Syst. Spec. Issue Gen. Syst. Transdiscipl. 2016, 4, 61–75. [Google Scholar]
- Hofkirchner, W.; Rousseau, D. Foreword. In General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications; Braziller: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. xi–xix. [Google Scholar]
- Rousseau, D.; Billingham, J. Is there “Ultimate Stuff” and are there “Ultimate Reasons”? In The Foundational Questions Institute’s 2012 Essay Competition: Questioning the Foundations (Finalist); FQXi: Decatur, GA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Rousseau, D. If minds are not just brains, what might they be? Presentation to the Scientific and Medical Network. Guildford, UK, 18 November 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Rousseau, D. Minds, Souls and Nature: A Systems-Philosophical analysis of the Mind-Body Relationship in the light of Near-Death Experiences. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wales Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, Wales, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Rousseau, D. Anomalous Cognition and the Case for Mind-Body Dualism. In Extrasensory Perception: Support, Skepticism, and Science; vol. II Ch. 13; May, E.C., Marwaha, S.B., Eds.; Praeger: Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 2015; Volume 2, pp. 271–304. [Google Scholar]
- Rousseau, D. General Systems Theory: Its Present and Potential [Ludwig von Bertalanffy Memorial Lecture 2014]. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. Spec. Issue ISSS Yearb. 2015, 32, 522–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rousseau, D.; Wilby, J.M.; Billingham, J.; Blachfellner, S. General Systemology—Transdisciplinarity for Discovery, Insight, and Innovation; Springer: Kyoto, Japan, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Rousseau, D. On the Architecture of Systemology and the Typology of Its Principles. Systems 2018, 6, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rousseau, D. “Systems Principles and Worldviews”. Workshop presented in the Systems Science Working Group (SSWG). In Proceedings of the International Workshops 2018 (IW18) of the International Council on Systems Engineering, Jacksonville, FL, USA, 20–23 January 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Rousseau, D. A Framework for Understanding Systems Principles and Methods. In Proceedings of the INCOSE International Symposium, Washington, DC, USA, 7–12 July 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Billingham, J.; Rousseau, D. A new approach to designing operational teams in evolving contexts. Presented at the OR Society 60th Annual Conference, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK, 11–13 September 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Varzi, A.C. On Doing Ontology without Metaphysics. Philos. Perspect. 2011, 25, 407–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bunge, M. Political Philosophy: Fact, Fiction, and Vision; Transaction Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Rousseau, D.; Billingham, J.; Calvo-Amodio, J. Systemic Semantics: A Systems Approach to Building Ontologies and Concept Maps. Systems 2018, in press. [Google Scholar]
- Rapoport, A. General System Theory. In The International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences; Sills, D.L., Ed.; Macmillan & The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1968; Volume 15, pp. 452–458. [Google Scholar]
- Sillitto, H.; Martin, J.; Dori, D.; Griego, R.M.; Jackson, S.; Krob, D.; Godfrey, P.; Arnold, E.; McKinney, D. SystemDef13MAy18.docx. In Working Paper of the INCOSE Fellows Project on the Definition of “System”; INCOSE: San Diego, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Rosen, R. Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Rousseau, D. A Systems Model of Spirituality. Zygon J. Relig. Sci. 2014, 49, 476–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oderberg, D. The Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Law. In Natural Moral Law in Contemporary Society; Zaborowski, H., Ed.; The Catholic University of America Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2010; pp. 44–75. [Google Scholar]
- De Caro, M.; Macarthur, D. Naturalism and Normativity; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Meadows, D.H. Thinking in Systems: A Primer; Chelsea Green: White River Junction, VT, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
1. | If something has canonical status, it is accepted as having all the qualities that a thing of its kind should have (Collins English Dictionary, see https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/canonical). |
2. | |
3. | |
4. | The rising tide if the so-called ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ is clear evidence of the need for methodologies to anticipate and manage social change in the face of technological advances. See, e.g., [19]. |
5. | The most controversial case is the ontology/metaphysics split. In the philosophical literature, some academics regard the ontology/metaphysics division as superfluous and settle for just the one or the other, some regard ontology as a subset of metaphysics, some regard metaphysics as a subset of ontology, and some regard the split as meaningful but only one of the two to be a feasible undertaking. For an accessible discussion, see [64]. A basic illustration of the possible distinction is this: the claim that “gravity” exists, and claims about what its identifying features are, are ontological claims; claims about the nature of gravity (e.g., that it is a force field or a curvature in space) are metaphysical claims. |
Worldview Component | Key Question | Content Scope | Relevant Concepts | Examples of Worldview Commitments |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ontology | What kinds of substances exist most fundamentally? What grounds the existence of reality? | Theory about what exists most fundamentally; Models of identifying characteristics | Space, time, matter, minds, God, Akasha, Apeiron, consciousness | All concrete things are physical particles or composites of them |
Metaphysics | What is the nature of the fundamental existents? | Theory about the powers, limitations and dynamics of what exists (and hence what is possible given the ontology) | Energy, lawfulness, real/imaginary, concrete/abstract, natural/supernatural | An objective reality exists; All changes have lawful causes |
Cosmology I (Cosmology of Nature) | What is the nature, origin, developmental history and potential of the natural world? | High-level theory about the origin, history, current state & activity, future and destiny of nature | Big bang, creation, evolution, systems hierarchy, expansion, heat death, transcendence | The world arose at the Big Bang and evolves in accordance with naturalistic laws. |
Cosmology II (Cosmology of Persons) | What is the nature, origin, developmental history and potential of human beings? | High-level theory about the origin, history, current state & activity, future and destiny of human beings | Evolution, reproduction, development, sentience, memory, will, agency, freedom, rationality, cognition, judgement, intentionality, wisdom | Human beings are animals with sentience, free will, agency, rationality, rights and duties |
Axiology | What is important and why? What makes something ‘good’? | Theories about what is good or important and why | Values, ethics, morality, aesthetics, social construction, utility theory, natural law theory, divine command theory | All sentient beings have the right to life and freedom |
Praxeology | How should we live? What gives action meaning? What are our purposes and how can we achieve them? | Theories about what is meaningful or purposeful action and why. Action principles and theories about agency, freedom and responsibility | Free will, choice, agency, freedom, responsibility, duty, best practice | We are responsible for our choices and our actions |
Epistemology | What/how can we (not) know? | Theories about what kinds of knowledge are possible and how to gain knowledge | Science, sacred texts, cultural authority, intuition, mystical revelation, experience | The scientific method can progressively reveal the truth about all real phenomena |
Part 1 | ||||
Rousseau & Billingham (2018) {The Worldview Inquiry Framework} <Systems Philosophy, Science> | Ken Funk (2001) [40] {The elements of one’s worldview} <Engineering> | Clement Vidal (2008) [38] {Fundamental questions, and the disciplines that try to answer them} <Evolutionary Cosmology> | James Sire (1976, 2004) [22,36] {Questions every worldview should answer} <Theology> | Diederik Aerts et al. (1994) [39] {The components of a worldview} <Physics> |
Ontology (What exists to generate the world? What provides the conditions for the possibility of the existence and nature of the world?) | Theology 1: beliefs about the existence of God | What is? (Ontology—model of reality as a whole) | What is prime reality—the really real? | - |
Metaphysics (What is the nature/character of the fundamental existent(s)?) | Metaphysics: beliefs about the ultimate nature of Reality Theology 2: beliefs about the nature of God | - | What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us? | Why is our world the way it is, and not different? Why are we the way we are, and not different? |
Cosmology I (Cosmology of Nature) (What is the nature of nature? What is its origin, scope, history and potential? | Cosmology: beliefs about the origins and nature of the universe; Teleology: beliefs about the meaning and purpose of the universe, its inanimate elements, and its inhabitants | Where does it all come from? (Explanation—model of the past) Where are we going? (Prediction—model of the future) | - | What is the nature of our world? How is it structured and how does it function? |
Cosmology II (Cosmology of Persons) (What is the nature, origin, history and potential of persons?) | Cosmology: beliefs about the origins and nature of life and Man; | - | What is a human being? What happens to a person at death? | What future is open to us and our species in this world? By what criteria are we to select these possible futures? How, in what different ways, can we influence the world? |
Axiology (What is important and why) | Axiology: beliefs about the nature of value, what is good and bad, what is right and wrong | What is good and what is evil? (Axiology—theory of values) | How do we know what is right and wrong? | - |
Praxeology (How should we act and why) | Anthropology: beliefs about the nature and purpose of Man in general and, oneself in particular | How should we act? (Praxeology—theory of actions) | What is the meaning of human history? What personal, life-orienting core commitments are consistent with this worldview? | How are we to act and to create in this world? What are the general principles by which we should organise our actions? |
Epistemology (What can we know? How and why?) | Epistemology: beliefs about the nature and sources of knowledge | What is true and what is false? (Epistemology—theory of knowledge) | Why is it possible to know anything at all? | Why do we feel the way we feel in this world, and how do we assess global reality, and the role of our species in it? How are we to construct our image of this world? |
Part 2 | ||||
Rousseau & Billingham (2018) {The Worldview Inquiry Framework} <Systems Philosophy, Science> | Ninian Smart (1981) [37] {Dimensions of every religious worldview} <Religious Studies> | Mario Bunge (2009) [65] {The branches of an authentic philosophy} <Scientific Philosophy> | Annick De Witt et al. (2016) [29] {The aspects of ‘The Integrative Worldview Framework’} <Sustainable Development> | Kenneth Samples (2007) [30] {The major components of a worldview} <Theology> |
Ontology (What exists to generate the world? What provides the conditions for the possibility of the existence and nature of the world?) | Doctrinal or philosophical dimension | Ontology 1: being | - | Theology—Concept of God, or absence of such |
Metaphysics (What is the nature/character of the fundamental existent(s)?) | Doctrinal or philosophical dimension | Ontology 2: becoming | Ontology 1—Metaphysics: What is the nature of reality? | Metaphysics—View of external reality, especially the cosmos |
Cosmology I (Cosmology of Nature) (What is the nature of nature? What is its origin, scope, history and potential? | Narrative or mythical dimension | - | Ontology 3: How did life originate? Ontology 4: What is the nature of nature? | History—Study of the nature, direction and purpose of unfolding historical events |
Cosmology II (Cosmology of Persons) (What is the nature, origin, history and potential of humans?) | Narrative or mythical dimension | - | Anthropology 1, 2, 3, 6: What defines who I am? What is a human being? What the humans’ relationship to nature? What happens to us at death? | Anthropology—Study of the origin, nature, problems and destiny of human beings |
Axiology (What is important and why) | Ethical or legal dimension | Axiology: values; Ethics: rights and duties | Ontology 2—What is the value of nature? Axiology 1, 2: What is important to me? What motivates my attitudes? Anthropology 4: What rights and obligations do we have about nature? Societal vision 1, 2: What is our role in society? What are our rights and duties in society? | Axiology—Study of the origin, nature, meaning and criteria of values |
Praxeology (How should we act and why) | Ritual or practical dimension; Social or institutional dimension | Praxeology: action | Axiology 3, 4: What do I value in life? What is my preferred lifestyle? Anthropology 5: Why do we suffer? | |
Epistemology (What can we know? How and why?) | Experiential or emotional dimension | Epistemology: cognition and knowledge; Logic: precision and deducibility; Semantics: meaning and truth; Methodology: evidence; Philosophy of Science | Epistemology 1, 2, 3: What is the role of science? What are the impacts of science and technology? Who/what can I trust about what to believe? | Epistemology—Study of the origin, nature, limits and validity of knowledge |
Inquiry Framework Component | Questions for Documenting a Worldview | Questions for Designing a Product (“X”) | Questions for Solving a Problem (“Y”) | Questions for Investigating a Phenomenon (“Z”) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ontology (of area of interest) | What kinds of substances exist most fundamentally? What grounds the existence of reality? | What variety of products exists in our area of interest? What are their distinctive attributes? What lies outside our area/remit? | What variety of problems exists in our area of interest? What are their distinguishing attributes? What problems are not for us to worry about? | What variety of fundamental existents is presumed to exist in our area of study? Where is the boundary of our area of concern? |
Metaphysics (of area of interest) | What is the nature of the fundamental existents? | What is the nature of the things in our area? What are the powers and limitations of things in our area of interest? | What is the nature of the problems in our area? What effects do they have? What are the limits of their influence? | What is the presumed nature of the fundamental existents in our area? What are their presumed powers and limitations? |
Cosmology I (cosmology of context of subject of interest) | What is the evolutionary history and potential of the natural world? | What context creates the need for X? Who are the stakeholders? What s the environment in which X will operate? How will the presence of a X change its environment and vice versa? | What is the context in which Y occurs? What is the relationship between Y and its environment? How might different solutions change the future context? | What is the context in which Zs arise? What is its relationship to its environment? |
Cosmology II (cosmology of subject of interest) | What is the scope, origin, developmental history, and potential of human beings? | What specific kind of thing (“X”) are we asked to make? How can we create Xs? How can we sustain them? What can become of them? | What is the scope of our specific problem (“Y”)? How did it arise and unfold? What will happen if we do not intervene? What about Y can we change? | What is the nature of the phenomenon under study? Where does it occur? How does it originate and develop? What is its potential? |
Axiology (of subject of interest) | What is important and why? What makes something ‘good’? | Why should the X be like that? How may be (not) develop/ produce it? | Why is Y perceived as a problem? Who are the stakeholders what are their values? | Why does it matter what Zs are and do? How may we (not) investigate it? What value can we derive from understanding it? |
Praxeology (of subject of interest) | How should we live? What gives meaning to our actions? How can we achieve meaningful actions? | What should the desired system do/achieve? What mechanisms could produce that? What methods do we have for designing such a thing? | What actions or outcomes would resolve the problem? What mechanism should we remove, adjust or install to achieve the desired outcome? How can we get this done? | Why do Zs do what they do? What functions do its behaviours provide? By what mechanisms are the functions attained? |
Epistemology (of area of interest, and of the specific subject of interest and its context) | What/how can we (not) know? | How could we know that X solves the actual problem at stake? How can we know that X will or does function as intended? What confidence can we have in this knowledge? | What/how can we learn about Y? How can we know the potential consequences of an intervention? How confident can we be in our understanding of Y and the consequences of our intervention? | How can we gain understanding of Zs? What methods are effective? |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Rousseau, D.; Billingham, J. A Systematic Framework for Exploring Worldviews and Its Generalization as a Multi-Purpose Inquiry Framework. Systems 2018, 6, 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems6030027
Rousseau D, Billingham J. A Systematic Framework for Exploring Worldviews and Its Generalization as a Multi-Purpose Inquiry Framework. Systems. 2018; 6(3):27. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems6030027
Chicago/Turabian StyleRousseau, David, and Julie Billingham. 2018. "A Systematic Framework for Exploring Worldviews and Its Generalization as a Multi-Purpose Inquiry Framework" Systems 6, no. 3: 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems6030027
APA StyleRousseau, D., & Billingham, J. (2018). A Systematic Framework for Exploring Worldviews and Its Generalization as a Multi-Purpose Inquiry Framework. Systems, 6(3), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems6030027