The Left Uses Science Only When It Suits Them - Politicrossing
Connect with us

Business

The Left Uses Science Only When It Suits Them

Science is supposed to be free from bias, but it rarely works out that way.

Published

on

During the coronavirus upheaval, a dizzying flurry of politicians, reporters, and pundits continually emphasize the need to proceed based on science. Do they actually adhere to their own exhortations? We’ve witnessed, time and time again, that many on the Left employ politics and power plays to prevail over science.

Indeed, science is supposed to be free from bias, but it rarely works out that way. And, does science provide the ‘be all’ and ‘end all’ prescription for the affairs of humanity?

Blank Slates and Beleaguered Brains

Examples of scientific short-sightedness abound. Many believe in the human mind as a tabula rasa or “blank slate” shaped almost entirely by culture. Yet, studies of twins separated at birth and later reunited show that inborn characteristics play a large role in personal development.

Many people contend that all GMOs are bad, yet humankind has been genetically modifying organisms for at least 10,000 years through breeding and selection. The size and quality of fruit and vegetables today, as a case in point, dwarf their ancient counterparts.

Some on the Left won’t acknowledge male/female differences in synapse firing and brain functioning, male/female aptitude and behavioral differences, real differences in IQ levels among specific gene pools, the awareness and sensory levels of human fetuses at various stages of development, the role of motivation and incentive in human behavior, the impact of solar activity on Earth’s climate, or the limits of evolution theory.

A Model, not the End All

If you studied chemistry in high school, or college for that matter, you might recall that the periodic table offers an ordered depiction of the chemical elements. Each is listed according to its atomic number (synonymous with its number of protons), electron configuration, and associated chemical properties. The periodic table presents “atomic” tendencies in the same column – namely elements that share similar behaviors.

While the miasma theory of disease, spontaneous generation, physiognomy, telegony, and transmutation of species, among numerous other theories, have been upended, the periodic table has been adapted and refined over two hundred years, and represents a vital tool for chemists, researchers, teachers, and students. It is, however, still in progress. The table is a good working model of atomic structures, but is far from perfect in portraying the characteristics of each of the known elements. What is unknown is still vast.

Likewise, evolution is a theory that explains the development of much, but not all, of life on earth. Many people regard it as sacrosanct without undertaking any further inquiry.

The theory of evolution’s shortcomings are exposed when discussing what happened before the big bang, what caused the big bang, where the matter unleashed by the big bang originated, how earth developed organic molecules, how ultra-complex biological mechanisms allegedly evolved, and why asexual reproduction is prevalent everywhere on earth in the form of bacteria

Partial Explanations

Evolution explains most of the formulation of life on earth and likely elsewhere. However, life itself, as far as we know, cannot occur without some combination of six elements: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur. Further, life requires moisture, and heat or energy. Earth has water and heat, but researchers are unsure how organic molecules first appeared on the planet.

Evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin; it does not explain the creation of atoms or molecules, the earth itself, the Milky Way, or any of the other 800+ billion known galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars, and each star with at least one planet, if not 10 or more. Nor does evolution explain the assembly of near-infinite mass in an infinitesimally small space prior to the Big Bang, the Redshift, or associated Doppler Effects.

I certainly wouldn’t throw evolution out the door. Like the periodic table is to chemistry and physics, evolution is a useful model for understanding many, but not all, aspects of how organic life develops. Evolutionary change is not necessary for some species to exist and persist. Many mosses, fungi, sharks, and crayfish, among other species, have barely changed over long stretches of time.

Other mechanisms of evolution apparently do not play a role in adaptive change. Many bacteria, for example, reproduce asexually. How can evolutionary concepts be applied to them when they appear to lie outside the realm of what we associate with biological species? Yet, bacteria are alive, and grow – sometimes to our disdain – profusely.

A Fuzzy Concept

The concept of a species, in and of itself, is fuzzy. Species are a man-made construct, created to better understand the diversity in nature. We prefer to offer distinct names to the various parts of an organism as simple as a tree. However, a tree represents a continuous web of life, extending from its roots to its most distant leaves. Roots can grow on their own, leaves do not. Trees themselves could contain thousands of species, many of which are entirely dependent on the tree to survive.

Biologists contend that life evolves by natural processes and mutations but have no clue how the raw materials for life, starting with the first cell, came into being. If you have no sun, no planet, and no first cell, no evolution of life occurs. According to evolutionist frameworks, the sun and stars, the earth and other planets, and the first cell on each planet occurred on some random and unguided basis. Maybe.

Across billions of planets, the odds do rise that some random and unguided processes result in something of note. Do we wish to cast our lot, however, with random and unguided processes as the pillars of life in the universe?

A Creator Behind it All?

On scientific grounds, the notion that the universe has always existed has been roundly debunked. Newton’s Laws of Thermodynamics reveal that the universe had to have had a beginning. The First Law of Thermodynamics, in particular, holds that only a finite amount of energy exists.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics reveals that the amount of available energy in the universe is continually decreasing. If the universe has always existed, all available energy would have dissipated long before we could appear.

The best, and really only, scientific explanation for the universe’s existence is that it was created by a higher intelligence. If you lean Left or otherwise, and you can’t handle that, it’s likely that you’re in denial.

– – – – –

We'd love to hear your thoughts about this article. Please take a minute to share them in the comment section by clicking here. Or carry the conversation over on your favorite social network by clicking one of the share buttons below.


Jeff Davidson is the world's only holder of the title "The Work-Life Balance Expert®" as awarded by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He is the premier thought leader on work-life balance, integration, and harmony. Jeff speaks to organizations that seek to enhance their overall productivity by improving the effectiveness of their people. He is the author of Breathing Space, Simpler Living, Dial it Down, and Everyday Project Management. Visit www.BreathingSpace.com for more information on Jeff's keynote speeches and seminars, including: Managing the Pace with Grace® * Achieving Work-Life Balance™ * Managing Information and Communication Overload®



  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
 
 
 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.



Business

Multitasking Renders You Less Productive

Multitasking sends a message to your subconscious that this is how you must proceed to stay competitive and succeed

Published

on

Dividing your attention to complete multiple activities at once can make you less effective at everything you’re doing.

From CEOs to newbie hires, everyone has numerous tasks to manage throughout the course of a day, week, month, and year. The multitude of responsibilities on your plate requires the capacity for self-management, time management, and the effective allocation of your resources. However, don’t confuse legitimate workplace skills with the contemporary, ill-advised phenomenon called multitasking.

A False Promise

Multitasking might appear to be a reliable way to tackle many issues that compete for your time and attention. It seems intuitive that if you can juggle both A and B concurrently, you’re achieving a productivity gain and saving significant time. But the fallacy in that argument is surmising that the human brain can double-up or triple-up on tasks with no loss of attention, focus, or effectiveness.

A plethora of psychological studies have shown that the human brain can only give “sharp attention” in one direction at a time. Seeking to give this level of attention in multiple directions yields a reverberating type of attention allotted to each activity and predictably results in a loss of mental acuity and productivity.

A clear example of multitasking is when you’re driving along the highway and speaking on a smartphone. Even if you switch to the hands-free speaker phone feature, both activities compete for your brain’s vital sharp attention. So you execute neither activity as effectively as you could by undertaking one activity at a time. It’s also prudent to point out that driving while talking on the phone-hands-free or not-contributes to distracted driving and an elevated rate of vehicular accidents.

Multitasking Coexists Best With Routine

Certainly, it’s okay to multitask while completing some repetitive and familiar work activities. You can run a print job while you work with a file on your screen, for example. As long as the printer has adequate toner and the paper feeds through as designed, there is no deficit in multitasking in this manner.

Nevertheless, for whatever task you are attempting to handle, the fact that you are running a print job at the same time is likely to diminish your overall effectiveness.

The loss in mental acuity will be relatively minor, and you might not even be aware of it. The real risk of workplace multitasking, however, is that you never quite retreat to that mental space where you can offer concerted concentration and, hence, your best work. But if you trace your actions over time, you’ll likely see that for the larger tasks you executed effectively, you stopped multitasking and focused on the task at hand.

Sending the Wrong Message

Multitasking sends a message to your subconscious that this is the way you have to proceed to stay competitive and succeed. When multitasking becomes ingrained in your psyche, you’re telling yourself deep down that you can’t make it in real estate any other way. You end up missing the benefits derived from practicing the art of “doing one thing at a time.”

Multitaskers have trouble “seeing the forest for the trees” and often fail to focus on the most critical components of their day-to-day operations, abandoning less palatable tasks because they require creativity, concentration, and analysis.

As an everyday practice, repeated often, multitasking separates those who continually scramble to keep pace from those who rise to the top.

Avoid the Bind

Since we all face multiple priorities on the job, it’s easy to equate managing multiple priorities with multitasking. The larger and more vital the task, the more essential to focus on it intently. Practice doing one thing at a time. When you’ve finished a project or have taken it as far as you can, only then should you switch focus to your second most important task, and so on.

As your day and work unfold, mastering the art of doing one thing at a time is the best way to proceed. You may, however, multitask on issues that represent the routine or familiar and that carry few consequences for lost time on the trail. In general, though, your best strategy for high productivity is to forsake multitasking and its false promise as you handle the multiple priorities that you face.

– – – – –

 

Continue Reading

Business

Culture Jamming, by Kalle Lasn

America has been subverted by corporate agendas and its elected officials bow before corporate power as a condition of their survival in office

Published

on

Here are excerpts from the culture-shaking book, Culture Jamming by Kalle Lasn, published by  William Morrow in 1999, which rings truer now than ever!

A Multitrillion-dollar Brand

America is no longer a country. It’s a multitrillion-dollar brand…. essentially no different from McDonald’s, Marlboro or General Motors. It’s an image “sold” not only to the citizens of the U.S., but to consumers worldwide. The American brand is associated with catch-words such as “democracy;’ “opportunity” and “freedom.” But like cigarettes that are sold as symbols of vitality and youthful rebellion, the American reality is very different from its brand image.

America has been subverted by corporate agendas. Its elected officials bow before corporate power as a condition of their survival in office. A collective sense of powerlessness and disillusionment has set in. A deeply felt sense of betrayal is brewing.

By The People?

American culture is no longer created by the people. Our stories, once passed from one generation to the next by parents, neighbors and teachers, are now told by corporations with “something to sell as well as to tell.” Brands, products, fashions, celebrities, entertainments, the very spectacles that surround the production of culture, are now our culture.

Our role is mostly to listen and watch-and then, based on what we have heard and seen, to buy.

A free, authentic life is not possible in America today. We are being manipulated in the most insidious way. Our emotions, personalities and core values are under siege from media and cultural forces too complex to decode. A continuous product message has woven itself into the very fabric of our existence.

Most North Americans now live designer lives: sleep, eat, sit in car, work, shop, watch TV, sleep again. I doubt there’s more than a handful of free, spontaneous minutes anywhere in that cycle.

Smile Button Culture

The human spirit of prideful contrariness and fierce independence has been oddly tamed. We have evolved into a smile-button culture. We wear the trendiest fashions, drive the best cars industry can produce and project an image of incredible aff1uence-cool people living life to the hilt.

Behind that happy mask is a face so ugly it invariably shocks the hell out of my friends from developing countries who come to visit, expecting the giddy Americana depicted on TV and finding instead a horror show of disconnection and anomie.

Our mass media dispense a kind of Huxleyan “soma.” The most powerful narcotic in the world is the promise of belonging. And belonging is best achieved by conforming to the prescriptions of America™. In this way a perverted sense of cool takes hold of the imaginations of our children. And thus a heavily manipulative corporate ethos drives our culture.

The Facade of Cool

Cool is indispensable, and readily, endlessly dispensed. You can get it on every corner (for the right price), though it’s highly addictive and its effects are short-lived. If you’re here for cool today, you’ll almost certainly be back for more tomorrow.

American cool is a global pandemic. Communities, traditions, cultural heritages, sovereignty, whole histories are being replaced by a barren American monoculture.

Living in Japan during its period of sharpest transition to a western way of life, I was astonished by the speed and force with which the American brand took hold. I saw a culture with thousands of years of tradition behind it vanquished in two generations. Suddenly, high school girls were selling themselves after class for $150 a trick so they’d have cash to buy American jeans and handbags.

The Earth cannot support the lifestyle of the cool hunting American-style consumer. We have sought, bought, spewed and devoured too much, too fast, too brazenly, and now we’re about to pay.

Killing the Planet

Economic “progress” is killing the planet. This did not fully hit home for me until nightmarish environmental stories suddenly appeared on the news: acid rain, dying seals in the North Sea, medical waste washing up on New York beaches, garbage barges turned away from port after port, and the discovery that the milk in American mothers’ breasts had four times the amount of DDT permitted in cow’s milk.

To people like me, for whom time had always seemed like a constant, eternally moving train which people got on and, seventy years later, got off, it was the end of innocence. The premonition of ecocide — planetary death — became real and it terrified me. It still does.

– – – – –

 

 

Continue Reading

 

Our Newsletter

Become a Politicrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Sites We Like

Our Newsletter

Become a PolitiCrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Trending

Politicrossing
 
Send this to a friend