Should any be wondering exactly what a "world view" is, notice that there is an objective reality or "world" (generally accepted) and there are the various perceptions of that reality or "views." There are many world views and they often differ from each other. When they differ sharply, one or more thus likely differs from such objective reality (the world) as might exist also.
That does not mean that the less differing ones are uncommon or considered aberrant, or any more aberrant anyway than more common world views. Various political parties, various religious denominations, some academic and other groups have a world view (in German "Weltanschauung") with considerable acceptance at least within their substantial group despite the differences outside their group.
The occupation of journalism is to reveal the objective reality where possible, assuming of course there is one. A movement in psychology decades ago was highlighted in a book titled, "The Social Construction of Reality" The book examined the importance of "reality" as society chooses to describe it.
Lately however it has become obvious that very large groups have very sharp differences in their world views that lead to strife. That indicates two things, first that society is failing to establish a world view with a utility recognized by the "world" itself, rather than by only some segment of it. Secondly it indicates the likely need to search out objective reality.
Where sharply opposing world views are found there are four possibilities. A) One of the views accurately describes objective reality. B) The opposing view does. C) Neither does, they are equally wrong. Or D) there is no objective reality, there are equally "right." The fourth possibility is usually dismissed as having no utility, which even proponents of it must admit.
There can appear a need for pejorative terms.
Science in the strict sense of the term is a leading proponent of objective reality. There is no voting in science. There is no debating in science either. Rather there is the "experiment" or survey that isolates causes down to one whose effect is to be measured, where "all else is the same" or in Latin "ceteris paribus." Where there is "debating" or "voting" there is no science. The boiling point of water was not found by debate. It was found be eliminating all the possible factors except temperature in order to measure the effect of temperature. Pressure for example must be held constant or the boiling point changes.
If science is a champion of objective reality how did it fail? How is it that sharply opposing world views exist?
It is usually not possible to eliminate all the other possible factors, especially with humans who cannot be kept in cages. Experimenting on humans who can be kept in cages is highly objectionable and illegal because of the inordinate risks. Medicine is therefore not science in the strict sense of the term. It is not science ceteris paribus. Of course a few details can be obvious, the human need for air, for blood circulation, for some sort of food, water and a few such things. Most importantly an accurate "death rate" recorded year after year can throw light on some matters.
Yet many people "believe" any activity of the medical profession is science and urge others to believe in the "science" of medicine. Why? It is because they have an emergent world view.
An emergent world view is the result of blindly accepting reports about the wide world that are too few and perhaps even mistaken. It can be the result of accepting something parading as "science" on nothing but a blind faith in it. Of course faith can be a good thing by saving needless trials and errors. Of course life would be nearly impossible without having some small faith at least in a few other people. Unless good leaders show the way though, hazardous world views can emerge.
Atheists very much dislike being shown that they have faith, and that they can be just as mistaken as any other people of faith or worse. And they are not the only people with an emergent world view. Many people who call themselves "Christians" have an emergent world view also. Especially those who are not yet acquainted with thorough study, and especially those who are indistinguishable from atheists in their behavior can have a very problematic emergent world view.
It has been the surprising course of the Republican Party since Donald Trump not only to have an emergent world view, but to be proud of it. When at last the severity of the "pandemic" is shown to be less than science can show, the Republicans will no doubt want credit. Up to that point they tended to use the pandemic as their excuse for failing to overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover and criticized my doubts about the pandemic. They also used other dirty tricks in the belief that I am their enemy, although I'm certain Glenn Youngkin had nothing to do with that. The need to overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover exists however severe the pandemic might be. Their failure to overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover is another facet of their emergent world view.
Especially prone to emergent world views are of course the people who did not vote in the last election because of the age requirement and who probably did not pay much attention to news. They can have unrealistic expectations about how effective merely passing laws can be.
The cat has been belled. Of the four possibilities in clashing world views, the answer is C) both political parties have it wrong so far.