Evidence Derived Worldview

With animals being naturally gay since the beginning of their existance it's hard to say it's a mental disorder..

 

I am not going to pretend; it is extremely hard for someone to change my opinons.

 

Something to remember is that these words in themselves are a worldview.

I believe what you are referring to is critical thinking. My favorite definition for it is...

Critical Thinking: a willingness to ask any question, no matter how difficult; to be open to any answer that is supported by reason and evidence; and to confront one’s individual and cultural biases and prejudices openly when they get in the way.

To apply critical thinking to a worldview which values critical thought, such as your own (and mine), yields the idea that sometimes there is no objective or tangible means by which to measure a conception and sometimes there is an infinite number of ways to interpret the evidence that is available. Just think of ideals such as love and freedom. How can these concepts be measured? Does everyone share the same interpretation of these concepts? These abstract values may even only exist in the mind, which would make them inherently subjective.

These limitations of critical thought are fine in themselves until humans subscribe value or significance to evidence which is immeasurable or from which there could be derived limitless interpretations. Just think of the Bible. Those people who accept it as credible evidence still interpret it a million different ways. So how do you treat that which cannot be proven right or wrong but which people still assign value or significance? If a person holds a different conception of freedom than my own, but which is equally as probable based upon the available evidence, then what course of action should be taken? Who is even to say that there is only one correct view of freedom?

To apply critical thought in such situations, will inevitably lead to turning to your own biases, because ultimately, even when we are accepting beliefs on evidence, we accepting them on faith. How certain are you of your evidence and that it has not been swayed by the biases of the humans who gathered and interpreted it? Repetition may yield the same result, but it could also yield the same human miscalculation or misinterpretation.

If you apply critical thinking to science and the evidence gathering process, then you realize both are based on inductive reasoning, which also makes assumptions.

Inductive reasoning makes the assumption of generalization...

Inductive reasoning also makes the assumption of constancy...

You have to subscribe value to the concepts of generalization and constancy in order to use evidence. If I say homosexuality exists in 450 species of vertebrates, then I am generalizing when I say that means it is natural. I've seen enough species to assume, based on my faith in generalization that I have a large enough sample of observations, to conclude that homosexuality is an inherent part of nature. When I say that homosexuality existed in ancient human cultures and is therefore a constant part of human's nature, I am putting my faith in the assumption of constancy.

So basically critical thought has its limitation, as does evidence, but if you wish to accept it into your worldview then I can't see how you would be any worse off than someone who accepts something on blind faith. Humans who use critical thought have been shown to contribute the most to progress. If you value progress, then critical thought is a probably a good thing. If you value the status quo, then you are probably resistant to critical thought.

 

That debate was a bit more complex since it came to a causal versus teleological contradiction in worldviews and as a result our definitions of "natural" were completely different. However, you are probably right. The underlying debate was probably whether or not homosexuality should be accepted as natural. The progressive view says "yes" and the status quo view says "no". Ultimately, it is humans who get to decide what constitutes as "natural" and what doesn't.