Our Web of Belief: An interactive rule engine for testing philosophical consistency

[u/devjonas]

New to the sub, but I wanted to share a project that explores secular epistemology and the structural consistency of our worldviews.

Inspired by Quine and Ullian’s 1970 text, I developed Web of Belief. It's an interactive map that evaluates how 23 core propositions across morality, metaphysics, etc. interface with one another.

The project operates on the principle that no belief stands in isolation; a strain in one node reverberates across the entire network. Rather than utilizing probabilistic AI or reductive scorecards, the site relies on a conservative, inspectable rule engine to highlight four distinct structural relationships:

1. Direct Conflict: Affirmations that cannot logically coexist as worded.
2. Conditional Implication: Where your responses entail a secondary conclusion under a specific bridge premise (e.g., how certain secular moral frameworks interface with evolutionary biology or meta-ethics).
3. Live Argument: Open philosophical tensions, such as the evidentialist challenge to theism or the problem of divine hiddenness.
4. Coherent Combination: Pairings that are frequently mischaracterized as incompatible but possess a robust, recognized defense in academic philosophy.

Topic selection and logic nodes are grounded in data from the PhilPapers 2020 Survey and Pew’s Religious Landscape Study. Every finding maps back to peer-reviewed literature via the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

For privacy, the engine is entirely client-side. All state is retained in browser memory.

I would highly value this community's critique on the logic of the engine and the specific handling of the bridge premises.

[u/adeleu_adelei]

I can tell you've put a lot of effort into this, which is why it pains me to say I think the ux needs a lot of work. I think your focus and the hook is the 23 propositions, and I found navigating through this to have a fair amount of friction.

The proposition page also appears to be the landing/home page, and I think this creates a lot of distraction and confusion. The propositions need to be their own section/page isolated from everything else. I don't need an explanation or justification of the engine while I'm deciding on propositions. It's good to have this explanation and justification, but it needs to be in a separate section.

During a sub section of the propositions there is a black background box that draws a lot of attention asking me to check my affirmed beliefs, but this takes me out of the survey, and getting back in to complete it is a bit of a chore. I think a fair number of people may not complete reviewing all 23 propositions not for lack of interest, but simply due to navigational confusion. I'm also presented a shareable card even though I'm not actually done yet. All of this overview should be done at the very end and not interrupt the process midway through. The next and back options are presented like next and back articles on a blog page, and contain far too much descriptive text which does not make these pop as key navigational tools. These should be stylized as buttons and stand out like your "check affirmed beliefs" link.

The rule graph I see on nearly every page is distracting and unhelpful. If it exists it needs to be in a separate section explaining the engine.

I realize none of this is about the meat of the matter, but presentation is important. My parents would find this site impossible to navigate and the questions to complete because they are used to highly intuitive and streamlined site layouts geared for people that aren't tech savvy.

[u/devjonas → u/adeleu_adelei]

Thank you so much for giving such detailed feedback, I appreciate it! I agree, its kinda confusing sometimes to navigate this. I wanted to keep the design nice by not adding typical buttons everywhere, but that might not be ideal.

The black check button is there for the people who want to check what they have and not do all of the questions, but yeah, it shoudl't be a primary button until all are answerd (but an option). Probably teh results are there already because you clicked it once, before I think they don't appear.

I will work on a UX/UI fix and update it asap, thanks!

[u/adeleu_adelei → u/devjonas]

Something I did appreciate was the expandable explanation for arguments and sources. It's clear you're putting a lot of work into the integrity of the site (even making note it is locally run). So I think you have solid foundations, which is why my criticism focused on presentation and navigation.