What makes one worldview better than another? While science has clear criteria for evaluating theories — internal consistency, explanatory power, experimental support — philosophy has lacked an equivalent framework. Until now.

In this talk, philosopher Dr. Clément Vidal presents nine meta-philosophical criteria for comparing and improving worldviews, organized across three dimensions: objective (scientificity, consistency, scope), subjective (personal consistency, utility, emotionality), and intersubjective (social consistency, narrativity, collectivity). He walks through practical tests you can apply at each level, from checking whether your values align with your description of reality to asking whether your worldview is compatible with current science.

Vidal connects these criteria to developmental psychology, explores why second-order philosophizing often loses touch with real-world impact, and makes the case that writing down and explicitly challenging your own worldview is one of the most powerful tools for intellectual growth.

Based on his paper “Metaphilosophical Criteria for Worldview Comparison”.

Timestamps

0:00 — Introduction

1:43 — Why Philosophy Lacks Criteria That Science Has

3:08 — The Big Questions Every Worldview Must Answer

5:44 — A Cybernetic Model Of Worldview Evolution

6:34 — Six Dimensions Of Philosophizing

9:26 — The Nine Criteria: Objective, Subjective, and Intersubjective

13:13 — Practical Tests For Evaluating Your Worldview

18:36 — Intelligent Design Vs. The Flying Spaghetti Monster

21:43 — Worldviews And Developmental Psychology

25:21 — How To Improve Your Own Thinking And Worldview

28:59 — Bootstrapping The Criteria: Applying Them To Themselves

30:56 — Conclusion