When I google “self-transforming mindset” I get a bunch of self-help stuff. You want to give me some actual reasons to take this stuff seriously?
How does one “keep all worldviews in mind” let alone “switch between them at will”? How does one even identify “all worldviews” in the first place let alone keep them all in mind given the fact that there aren’t any obvious a priori limits on the number or content of the set of “all worldviews”?
First of all, I completely agree that some disciplines of science are too speculative to eliminate all the proposed theories. Psychology is a great example. However, that doesn’t mean we can’t do a little filtering even when it comes to psychology. Freudian psychoanalysis, for example, can probably be pretty much chucked as anything but a canonic example of pseudoscience. Behavioralism as a paradigm had its day of producing quality experimental work but it’s not a workable theory any more given what has been discovered about neuroscience and genetics. And so on. There’s still no “GUT” of how the mind works but there’s enough evidence to eliminate some possibilities. This is a good thing as it lets researchers devote their time, attention, and resources to the more promising possibilities out there.
However, what you’re calling “convergence” is actually a central pillar of the scientific mindset and a very important part of the progress of science. The terms “consilience” and “synthesis” can also be used in this context. The idea is that we all share one world and that the one world has a definite way of operating regardless of the opinions of the observer. This idea is exactly what makes multiple lines of independent evidence converging on one explanation the gold standard of scientific argumentation.
Ultimately, the best possible argument for any scientific theory is that the predictions of that theory are consistent with the predictions of “adjacent” theories. For example, chemistry and quantum electrodynamics are “adjacent” theories developed independently but which make the same predictions. The fact that they are consistent with each other despite being derived independently is a fantastic argument for both theories: how unlikely is it that these two independent theories would make the same predictions if one or both of the theories was seriously flawed? Another example is Darwinian evolution and genetics. Darwin predicted the existence of something like DNA and ever since its inception genetics has reached back to provide evidence for Darwinian evolution.
So what you call “convergence” is actually a very important part of scientific argumentation. While there are some fields that are still speculative enough to admit many competing theories, history has already demonstrated the utility of converging on the most productive theories when such an undertaking becomes possible.
Note that Thomas Kuhn actually differentiated between a sort of proto-science where there is no dominant paradigm and mature science where there is a dominant paradigm. Although your suggestions are rather antithetical to Kuhn’s ideas since Kuhn thought scientists are already doing a fantastic job of doing science (though he didn’t think they understood why they were so effective).
