verifiable definitions for everybody

It's a frequent mistake to try to elevate one culture's notions into universal laws. That's why I don't mind considering the charge that the philosophical stance I encourage is a "purely Western invention".  If it had no chance at broader relevance or appeal, I'd rather know than not.

Nevertheless, at least the core principle isn't a Western-only concept. It's binding an idea's meaning and accuracy to the "shadow" it should cast on outcomes, i.e. realities which are exposed via human actions. (These actions might be mental and/or passive, such as calculating or unbiased observing.) The important instructions to follow this principle properly aren't especially Western either: to be diligent, honest, and fair throughout the tasks of gathering up and evaluating the outcomes that supposedly reveal the corresponding idea's meaning/accuracy; to be alert to any outcomes that are equally supportive, or more supportive, of competing ideas; and most difficult of all, to recognize the absence of the idea's shadow on outcomes that really should've been affected if the idea were meaningful and accurate.

The reason I think this stance is widely applicable is because of the widely occurring human problems that it was created to address. When one person is trying to narrowly determine what another person is talking about, comparing the idea to specific actions and outcomes helps. "I'm talking about the position you would reach by traveling to latitude and longitude coordinates X and Y in decimal degrees...or the position you would see on a map by finding the intersection of them." A second problem might be trying to decide whether another person is using differing ideas to express a meaning that's close to identical. A third problem might be trying to estimate an idea's overall feasibility by estimating the feasibility of the actions associated with it. A fourth problem might be trying to deflate another person's deception (or ignorant self-delusion) through noticing that their idea lacks adequate rationales that anyone can check. Wherever and whenever there are groupings of people whose symbolic communication empowers them to refer in detail to things that aren't here right now, they're empowered to carelessly refer in detail to things that aren't so.

Actually, speaking from where I sit, it's debatable how widely this stance is firmly embraced within any of the cultures that are said to have a Western heritage. It's in a continual contest with other cultural currents, some of which have the backing of social pressure and a formidable history. The effect is that people within these cultures have also long used alternative "methods" such as superstition or the opaque rulings of unchallenged authority figures. True, the exact content of the shoddy ideas changes over time, because fashions—and blind spots—change. But the mechanism is depressingly consistent. For instance, anxiety about counteracting bad spirits gives way to anxiety about counteracting bad energy (or counteracting minute quantities of bad toxins?). I'm forced to confess that even many of the members of my own culture aren't in favor of the stance I preach.

A more general truism is at work here: sorting both ideas and cultures by a single Western/non-Western split is too coarse-grained to reliably predict people's responses. There are significant differences among all the cultures which are said to have a Western heritage. The result of these differences is that my stance is more welcomed in some of them than in others. And it's more welcomed in some subcultures more than others.

Just as receptiveness varies throughout the group of Western cultures, it varies throughout non-Western cultures as well. In the same way that everybody placed on one side cannot be assumed to be completely open to it, everybody placed on the other side cannot be assumed to be completely closed to it. Despite eager attempts both to neatly assign an idea to one side and then to emphasize a rift between the sides, large numbers of people on either side have always been willing and able to absorb the bits they like from the ideas that reach them. Voluntary exchange of useful ideas has been going on for as long as the voluntary exchange of goods has. The cultural divide might be a good representation of the accidental misunderstandings that can happen so easily...but it's hardly an impassable barrier in practice.

My expectations of finding common ground don't stop there. I suspect that "they" might find that portions of the idea feel familiar. Worthy ideas have the tendency of springing up independently in several times and places, although the triggering situations and the forms of expression are of course unique. In this sense, I highly doubt that the origins of stances like mine have always been in the cultures in the Western pigeonhole. As I stated earlier, the most abstract debates about meaning and accuracy still have natural motivations. People in non-Western cultures must have developed their own versions of the triangle of ideas/actions/outcomes...though perhaps less formally or less fully. If so then their reaction will be "Oh, you're describing a view that has a few strong resemblances to ___ in my culture" instead of "You're describing a view which is entirely alien to anything that I've known before".

The risk of focusing on culture is to miss the other levels in which opposing ways of thinking clash. Clashes at the level of culture are obviously pertinent, but so are the clashes at the levels of the individual's everyday struggles with their own thoughts. The truth is that my upbringing in a Western-categorized culture wasn't sufficient to stop me from restricting the introspective reach of this "very Western stance" for years. Else it would've clashed with the unsound beliefs that I shielded from its standards. The turning point came when I aimed it at my base assumptions; I stopped treating it as an optional tool suitable solely for limited areas of knowledge. As tough as it might be to introduce a way of thinking to someone, it's not as tough as the next challenge of convincing them to value a rigorously examined, intellectually coherent life. The end goal isn't to convert every part of their culture to be more "Western" (how boring), it's to equip them to better analyze the parts of their own many-sided cultures for themselves and to free their minds if they wish. Some Westerners like I have had the same task.