Leftism's Claim to be Champions of Science is a Gigantic Fraud

               Leftism[1] by any stripe rejects obligation to religious tenets as their authority, even in principle.  Rather it denigrates both “sacred” doctrines and philosophy[2] to a lesser degree, in deference instead to “hard” factual conclusions that they assert follow from scientific research.  Since this is the standard upon which Leftism claims its certitude, it is fitting to scrutinize its degree of loyalty to both scientific methodology and the data that it yields with respect to specifically the Democrat Party’s “values and conduct.”  So the question is, do Leftists obey the same scientific principles they impose onto others?  The body of analytic criteria and principles which apply across the entire scientific enterprise include:

1.                  The primacy of the philosophical First Principle of the “Law of Non-Contradiction.”[3]

2.                  The universality[4] of truth across every context.  Since truth is one, it is to be applied uniformly.

3.                  The necessity to seek, assemble, and consider every piece of relevant scientific evidence.

4.                  The necessity to test each hypothesis under consideration against all known scientific facts.

5.                  The wisdom to evaluate the distinction between empirical data and philosophical conjecture.

6.                  The biblical and rational demand to seek truth[5] and consequently, to follow it where it leads.[6]

Though this list is not exhaustive, its’ criteria are sufficient to expose the utter nakedness of the Leftist’s empty claim to sincere adherence to the parameters entailed in scientific principles.

·             Point 1: The first First-Principle holds that “contradictory truths cannot both be true in the same way and at the same time.”  Leftism denies this by, for example, insisting both that, for example, biological males who identify as females be deemed as such, despite their genes and anatomy, and that a fetus is part of the woman’s body, regardless of blood-type, anatomy, and genes.

·             Pt. 2: The rules of validation that the Left exploits for themselves, they deny to Conservatives.

·             Pt. 3: principles have been violated in two ways.  This Presidential campaign, Biden-aligned news-feeds censored videos which connected the nightly-riots to Democrat leadership, which, if shown, could have thwarted Biden-supporters from voting prejudicially.[7]  In regard to Covid-19, they also shut out alternative views held by equally-qualified-scientists from being heard.

·             Pt. 4: Leftists violated this principle by staunchly refusing to scrutinize both the qualifications of their candidates and the glaring dishonesty of their platform, in that they never unveiled it.

·             Pt. 5: In a naked attempt to retain their materialistic postures, so-inclined “scientists” ignore empirical facts that validate the Big Bang, by fixating instead on non-testable speculation.[8]

·             Pt. 6: In a Court of Law, people “swear to tell the truth; the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”  Willful departure from this standard with the examples I cited above, undermines that very foundation which is necessary for the public to trust the “science” that Leftism distorts.  Worse still, they also refuse to critique their own positions in light of the above principles.

---

[1] I use the term “leftism” as a broad blanket term to cover a worldview which contrasts with conservativism on the sociological spectrum.

[2]  An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.davidhume.org/text/e/E1234SBN165.  ** Stephen Hawking began his book, The Grand Design by stating that “Philosophy is dead.” Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. (Bantam, 2012), p.5.

[3] Without it there can be no science. J.P. Moreland. Christianity and the Nature of Science: A Philosophical Investigation. (Baker, 1989), p. 118.  

[4] Universal Truths. https://www.nature.com/articles/472136a

[5] Unless it is held that scientists are dealing with truth in regard to physical reality, there is no intellectual motive to research nature.

[6] Plato. The Republic. (Penguin, 1966), no. 394, p. 133.

[7] Renford Bambrough, ed. The Philosophy of Aristotle. Ethics, (Mentor, 1963), bk. III, pp.323,4.

[8] Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross. The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Latest Scientific Discoveries Reveal God. (RTB, 2018), pp. 85-107.

The Infinite Distance Between Bias and Prejudice (a case study for today)

 “And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind…” (Romans 1:28)

 

               In popular culture today the words “bias” and “prejudice” are often used as synonyms.  Both, for example, refer to our propensity to make decisions that can be more-or-less predicted.  For this reason, one commonality between the two is their connection to the state of our “convictions.”  Yet that is where the similarity ends.  Bias pertains to our inclination to make decisions on the basis of either our experiences, knowledge that we have attained, or moral convictions that we not only hold, but also resolve to consistently put into practice.  On the one hand, biases may be grounded on inadequate knowledge or false perceptions.  Yet at the very least they rest on more than untethered emotions.  In summary, biases are not necessarily negative or immoral, while in certain circumstances they are, to the contrary, highly laudable.  The same, however, cannot be said about the second term, “prejudice.”

               The meaning of the word “prejudice” is nakedly clear by its very grammatical constitution.  It consists of the preposition, “pre,” and the root verb, “judge,” so that it literally means “to pre-judge” or “to judge before taking into consideration all of the relevant facts.”  I am writing this essay in between the official election day (Nov. 3) and the final tabulation and, potentially, assessment of the legitimacy of the ballots cast (who knows when?).  One profound oddity about this particular election was the early demand by the Democrats; not only that an absentee ballot be made available to whoever applies for it (all well and good), but further that mail-in ballots be made available in the broad sense by delivering them to every person irrespective of whether it was requested by the addressee. The enactment of this charge further made it possible that masses of people could cast their vote weeks prior to the official election date.  Many concerns were raised over the logistical dangers that this arrangement posed. 

Yet the concern I wish to highlight is the “moral”[1] aspect of their motivator for repeatedly urging people to cast their ballots early.  The practical (though damaging) result of pressing voters to get their ballot in “now,” was that votes be completed before the first Presidential debate, and, obviously prior to the 2^nd one too.  In other words, Democrats strongly urged prejudicial voting in choosing the next President of the United States.  By so doing, Democrat citizenry cast their ballots in virtually willful[2] ignorance of both the facts and contextual arguments which are crucial for every single voter to know. 

This transgression indeed puts the Democrat platform into contradiction with science and the principles that undergird its methodology.  In other words they are in violation of not only conservative standards, but their very own criteria.   Although the “scientific method” (SM) varies in the details of its criteria according to the field under consideration (biology, physics, or geology etc.), one mandate that is absolutely universal is that in order for a valid conclusion to be reached, all of the relevant data must both be drawn together and rigorously analyzed.  Had the (self-lauded “scientific”) Democrats honored SM, they would have heeded the bias of caution that it demands so as to scrutinize the merits of the respective cases, and in the current highly-pressing crisis, rationally ponder the direction that its Party’s incompetent candidate will lead our nation.  Because they show no signs whatsoever of doing so, it is not a scientific bias that leads them, but prejudicial blindness that stupefies them.

---

[1] I employ the word, “moral” here solely as a category of potential motivators.  I am not affirming that Democratic principles are based on classical moral values.

[2] Although readers may object to my application of the word “willful,” by the fact of denunciations of televising the riots by alphabet stations,  Democrats have no excuse for being in ignorance of their existence.