Scientific Method to Enslave the Labor

Scientific management concept initiated by Fredric Taylor was about standardization of the production process by dividing it into small mindless tasks which would be repeated continuously by the worker in a mechanical fashion in exchange of the pay check. 

This replaced the idea of workmanship or craftsmanship, which was a source of pride for the artisan and expression of his creativity, with the dictates of standard operating procedures subsequently ripping off the intrinsic ownership with an extrinsic rewards / punishment, carrots & sticks. 

The labor eventually felt dehumanized and their collective resentment lead to strikes and retaliation. This further lead to a division between labor and the management into two classes, one class worked for a paycheck and the other one managed and controlled the capital. 

In response to this disconnect the behaviorist approach made attempt to bridge the gap by taking the input of the labor in trivial matters like how much light should be there on the shop floor, what should be the color of the uniform, how the production process can be made more efficient etc. 

This reduced the disconnect by giving the labor a feeling that they are part of the game as they have some influence on what happens in the organization. 

The behaviorist approach influences the behavior of the workforce by enabling them to own the organization and not feel alienated; however its originally about creating an illusion as the key / important decisions about the fate of the organization and career of the workforce is rather decided by the management.

Some Meta-Rational Beliefs of a Modern Secular Man

Some beliefs of a modern secular & liberal man, which cannot be proven empirically, like religious beliefs in God, Judgement Day, Angles, revelation etc. here they are:

1. Humans are the most sacred being in the universe, they are sovereign and not answerable to any one. (Who is a mature Human, see point 9)

2. Something doesn't exist or is irrelevant if it cannot be observed, experienced or measured. (God, judgement day, etc.)

3. Every effect has a physical cause which can be observed... future is by chance, probabilistic, and not pre-determined, no such thing as fate. Man is the creator of his own destiny, but man is created by the phenomenon of mechanical causality himself, and will become the cause of something else. 

4. Change is the only constant, everything is changing continuously into something better (see point 8) then before, change is good, resisting change or hindering the process of "Evolution" is bad.  

5. To work in one's own self-interest is rational & reasonable, and focusing on one's own self-interest will ensure well being of other's as well (Smithian Invisible hand theory)

6. Freedom is most sacred & valuable, however human's are not free to reject freedom

8. More freedom to pursue self-interest is better then less, this is how change (point 4) will be appraised

9. One's rationality (self-interestedness) should surpass religion, tradition, culture, family bonds, etc. This is maturity. Following religion or tradition is a sign of immaturity. 

10. Death is not end of life but end of the world

11. There can be multiple conceptions of good or bad (haraam or halal), irrespective of their apparent contradiction, as long as they do not limit one's freedom and go against rationality (point 9).

12. The fittest ones survives, however if any two random individuals if qualify to the criterion of being human (being a self-determined, autonomous, rational or self-interested, competitive, freedom loving being) then they must be treated equally by the society. 

13. Bring rich is good, being poor is bad. Rich are more free then the poor. 

14. The purpose of live is to be more and more free, hence one must continuously pursue to maximize his earnings to enhance his freedom. Its the destiny of human's to be perfectly free from any traditional, religious, cultural, family, genetic and physical constrains

15. The only reliable source of knowledge is human reason and observations to answer all important questions in life, including that of morality and ethics. 

Dissecting the term “Creativity”

By Noman Mahmood

The problem with the word “creativity” is that it is often overused without being understood clearly. Especially in the modern times when creativity is seen as the new iconic academic term for everyone, it is very hard to make them understand and identify the exact connotation of it.

Before proceeding we need to understand the modern common concept of creativity. We can refer to Wikipedia for its definition:

| The use of imagination or original ideas to creating something new; inventiveness |

The definition above that is provided by Wikipedia is a general understanding of this term in modern times, which is to bring out something original through thinking. In simple words a person who produces a totally new thought. In hearing out this definition normally, one can assume it to be very glamorous, but there is a serious error when it comes to the implementation of the process of creativity. But before we understand the problem of it, we have to examine the roots of this particular definition. The idea of the original thought is a byproduct of the philosophy of rationality which actually links back to the starting of the universal thinking in the period of renaissance.

The Difference between Scientific & Religious Approach

By Omar Javaid

The scientific approach incorporates rational and empirical analysis to reach to conclusions. Being rational scientific approach look for empirically verifiable causes of anything which happens or exists. Like the creation of the universe, world, life, and every thing else. Scientific method takes the falsification approach to disprove the claims made by previous scientists, and accepts a claim until it’s falsified with evidence. In this context any claim which isn't falsifiable like religious narrative about the nature of world, life & its purpose, the Creator & its characteristics, and the life after death or judgment day etc. is rather termed as superstitious by science.

Religion on the other hand considers revelation or wahi and its interpretation by the prophets to be the final authority. All answered given by divine scriptures and the prophets regarding the questions about life, death and this world or the next one will be considered definitive. Religion however does not restrict the use of logic and experience until and unless they remains within the prescribed boundaries and facilitates in the process of submission to the divine will. In view of Quran a person is only intelligent if he recognizes the truth as described in Quran itself and uses his observations of the world to further strengthen his belief. This however is an absurdity in the light of scientific approach.

Dissecting Secular Liberalism

By Uzair Saroya

Amidst the multifarious political and social philosophies that are in practice all around the world, secularism and liberalism stand out as the most fiercely advocated ones. They derive their legitimacy mainly from the fact that the nations which have adopted these ideas as their national policy have prospered and progressed, and those which have failed to do so are in ruins. We are here to examine the validity of these claims, and in the process know about the roots of these philosophies. The main purpose of this article is to make sense of these ideas from a perspective of an average man living in the south-east of Asia (where religion still holds sway over masses).

If we start from the beginning, as I mostly like to do, we find that there are two dominant narratives that can help us understand the present socio-political paradigms of our world. One is the narrative of Semitic Religions, and the other is the ‘modern scientific narrative’. These two are opposite and contradictory, but both of them have more or less equal explanatory power (depending on the preconceived notions of the observer/reader).