How to Evaluate a Set of Ideas From the Inside and the Outside.

When philosophers evaluate a worldview, theory, or belief system, they often use two distinct methods of critique: internal critique and external critique. These approaches are powerful in different ways, and each reveals different kinds of problems—especially when we try to reconcile a set of ideas with history, evidence, or lived reality.

Let’s walk through what each method does, why it matters, and where each one struggles.

🧩 What Is an Internal Critique?

An internal critique evaluates a set of ideas on its own terms. You temporarily “step inside” the worldview and ask:

• Are these ideas consistent with each other?
• Do they contradict their own principles?
• Do they lead to conclusions that the system itself would reject?
• Does the worldview explain its own history in a coherent way?

✔️ Strengths of Internal Critique

• It shows logical contradictions within the system.
• It respects the worldview enough to take its claims seriously.
• It’s often more persuasive to people who hold the belief system.

❗ Common Problems Revealed by Internal Critique

• Self-contradiction: A system claims X but also implies not‑X.
• Selective memory: The worldview ignores parts of its own history.
• Unstable foundations: Key concepts are vague, circular, or undefined.
• Unlivable ideals: The system demands behaviours that its own adherents cannot or do not follow.

Example (generic, not tied to any specific ideology)

A movement claims to value universal equality, yet historically it has excluded certain groups. Internal critique asks: If equality is foundational, how do you justify these exclusions?

🌍 What Is an External Critique?

An external critique evaluates a worldview from outside its assumptions. You don’t accept its premises—you compare them to:

• empirical evidence
• historical facts
• alternative theories
• human psychology
• social or economic realities

✔️ Strengths of External Critique

• It exposes factual inaccuracies.
• It highlights historical contradictions.
• It shows where the worldview fails to match reality.
• It allows comparison with other systems.

❗ Common Problems Revealed by External Critique

• Historical mismatch: The worldview claims X happened, but evidence shows otherwise.
• Predictive failure: The system predicts Y will occur, but Y never does.
• Idealisation: The worldview describes humans as far more rational, altruistic, or unified than history suggests.
• Ignoring complexity: Real societies rarely behave according to neat theoretical models.

Example (again, generic)

A theory claims that human societies naturally evolve toward a specific ideal state. External critique asks: But history shows societies move in cycles, regressions, and unpredictable directions—so why trust this linear model?

🔍 Why Both Critiques Matter

A worldview can be:

• internally consistent but externally false (logically tidy but contradicted by reality)
• externally plausible but internally incoherent (fits the world but contradicts itself)
• both internally and externally flawed (common!)
• both internally and externally robust (rare, but possible)

Using both methods gives a fuller picture of where ideas succeed or fail.

🧠 Reconciling Ideas With History and Reality

The Hardest Part

Many belief systems—political, religious, philosophical, scientific—struggle to reconcile their ideals with:

• messy historical events
• human irrationality
• unintended consequences
• power dynamics
• technological change
• cultural diversity

This is where critique becomes most illuminating.

Typical Tensions

• The theory says people should behave like this… but history shows they behave like that.
• The system claims to be universal… but it arose in a very specific time and place.
• The worldview claims inevitability… but historical outcomes are contingent and chaotic.

These tensions don’t automatically invalidate a worldview, but they demand explanation—and often reveal its limits.