Hmm…from wiki
Worldview remains a confused and confusing concept in English, used very differently by linguists and sociologists. It is for this reason that James W. Underhill suggests five subcategories: world-perceiving, world-conceiving, cultural mindset, personal world, and perspective
Anyway, your link mentions how world views may or may not include the existence of god. These are two mutually exclusive realities so one person has a faulty world view.
You mentioned people living amid gang violence in an inner city versus a person in a rural setting. If the person in the city, based on his experience with gang violence, thought that all people of color were violent gang members, that would be an incorrect world view.
This man doesn’t believe that Nazi Germany murdered six million Jews, and he’s willing to say so on TV. Do I need to respect his world view?
I would argue that since the existence or nonexistence of god isn’t provable, neither opinion is a valid example of “a faulty world view.”
A world view is personal. No one has the right to intrude on that individual’s world view and tell them that the way in which they see the world isn’t valid. That smacks of 1984 Orwell.
I disagree. Not all people of color are violent gang members, and a world view that believes they are is false, dangerous, and damaging.
So out of 7 or 8 billion individual views of the world, who gets to decide for each individual whether theirs is faulty? What does that even mean? 
In the example you quoted I specifically stated that a world view based on the existence or nonexistence of god cannot be called faulty because god’s existence isn’t provable.
The right? People can say whatever they want to say.
You missed the part where I said individual.. Let’s look at it a little differently.
If an inner city black person is bombarded on a daily basis with the believe that they are forever stuck in the inner city because of the white man. That person’s individual view of the world would most likely include a hatred of white people.
That is an individual’s view of the world, shaped by their environment and upbringing. To them that hatred would probably be very real.
So obviously when you step back and look at societal norms, obviously it would be absurd to say that the inner city’s plight was caused by whites - even though more than a few LIBs continue to perpetrate that nonsense.
But that isn’t really what we are talking about here. That inner city black person’s world view is very much influenced by their inner city experience. No one has the right to tell that individual that their fear of the white man is invalid.
I don’t understand this. The person in question is unequivocally wrong. Why can’t a rational person try to make this individual understand that not all white people are evil?
Yep! But if they act on it, everything changes. That is exactly what we are seeing with LW thugs trying to shutdown anything they don’t agree with.
The worldview won’t be flipped on a dime. With targeted programs and counseling, that person’s world view could evolve.
But let’s take something a little closer to home and switch to politics.
Obviously conservatives and liberals have two very different views of the world. Is it really valid for a liberal or a conservative to tell someone that everything they believe in is in correct? That is what I see all of the time here.
We all see the world very differently. Only the most arrogant would attempt to coerce others to see things exactly as they do.
Oops! I replied to the wrong post.
It’s certainly not valid to argue that everything a liberal or a conservative believes is false. No one is always right or always wrong.
These statements seem contradictory. Should we attempt to change a person’s world view we feel is false with “targeted programs and counseling,” or would “only the most arrogant do so”? I believe that if a person thinks all people of a certain race are evil, we have a duty as a civilized society to try to change that world view.
But when it comes to politics, is there really a right and a wrong???
Let’s take supply side versus Keynesian economic theory. Both sides have subject matter experts arguing their respective position. There is a ton of historical data that can be spun by both sides to make their respective cases. Not surprisingly, both sides strongly believe their position is superior.
But at the end of the day, we are left with two very strong opposing points of view. Is their really a right or a wrong here?
The plight of the inner city is well documented. The solutions aren’t always straight forward. There are a multitude of programs targeting these neighborhoods to provide assistance with the ultimate goal of lifting them out of the endless cycle of dependency. Anyone who is able to successfully lift themselves out of that cycle of dependency will have their worldview shaped in the process.
Yes they do.
If you never flew on a plane or seen a picture of earth from space, your world view may be that the earth is flat. Are you saying that no one can invalidate that world view with facts?
I don’t think anyone is doubting that an individual cannot have a differing world view than you or myself. However if that world view is contradictory to facts or human rights, we should be able to teach that person the right way.
Technically you are correct that no one could stop some arrogant elitist from flapping their gums and mouthing the words. 
But that’s not what you said.
