Andrew Hussey

Brantford, Canada

About Andrew

Languages

English

Areas of Expertise

Pharmacology, Philosophy, martial arts, Poetry, Film, Literature

Comments & conversations

113549
Andrew Hussey
Posted about 4 years ago
Can there ever be a way to reconcile a "lame science" with "blind religion"?
He had his moments...had a bit of a strange sexual penchant (all that stuff where he made kids bathe and sleep together is a little odd in this day and age)...and he was a bit of a racist (going so far as to write "...the white race in South Africa should be the predominating race."), but outside that he had his moments...I agree with a lot of Ghandi's writings, but he had his own issues to deal with too...
113549
Andrew Hussey
Posted about 4 years ago
Can there ever be a way to reconcile a "lame science" with "blind religion"?
"What is the root of our own morality and ethics?" From everything I've seen, WE are, society, the chosen norm of the age or the zeitgeist of the era...but then I'm a moral relativist so I don't really believe in any absolute moral truth. What was good 500 years ago may be seen as utterly evil today and vice versa...there's little if anything to suggest either one is "right", just "different"
113549
Andrew Hussey
Posted about 4 years ago
should we allow the nuclear power,,???
The problem with radiation is that it tends to be so long-term...there's going to be an enormous area around the plant where people are going to have to avoid for literally some hundred plus years. I get the feeling the real deaths associated with the Fukushima incident will begin a few decades down the road as multi-generational mutations, cancer and so on start to crop up.
113549
Andrew Hussey
Posted about 4 years ago
Do you think we our programming are children right from the day they are born?
Pretty much any branch would have it's benefits really...if one can think of science as a means of cataloging observations of the universe, internal and external, then any one system tends to be intrinsically tied to all the others. A behavioral psychologist may have a little more aptness towards observing behavioral problems. A neurologist would be more informed in regards to how those behavioral problems function within the actual physical brain...a psychiatrist would have a good understanding of how to treat problems. In all honestly there's no "one branch" that's going to completely prepare anyone for the task of parenting. Whenever strong emotions like love are involved it seems the ability to look at issues surrounding those emotions in a clinical or dissociated way. That's why so many psychologists have psychologists. :) I suppose the best answer would be cross training, having a solid, if not university level, understanding of the most associated subjects like developmental psychology and so forth.
113549
Andrew Hussey
Posted about 4 years ago
Do you have a suggestion for TED? Something we could do better?
I was asked to repost this here, so I'll just copy and paste the original question: -- I apologize if this has been asked before, I've been on the site for awhile but just as of a couple days ago actually began posting so I'm a relative noob in the discussions here. I've made a few posts and had some responses that I would like to respond to in the debates section. Unfortunately I can only seem to reply up to 3 "indents" into the conversation, after the Original Post, then three replies in any discussion the option to reply suddenly disappears for me. Is there any way I can get deeper into the thread, or is this an inherent limit for everyone? There's some solid debates going on, but it's very hard to actually go very in depth into anything without some back and forth between people, having to "jump back" to the beginning of the threads seems somewhat messy for keeping track of any real development of ideas between people (particularly if the discussion involves 3 or more people). Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any way to rectify the problem...of course I could simply be an idiot and be missing some obvious way to continue into the discussion so I figured I would ask. :) any help is appreciated
113549
Andrew Hussey
Posted about 4 years ago
Do you think we our programming are children right from the day they are born?
Human psychology is so much more complex than any one branch...I've always been a bit annoyed with both the nature and nurture sides of the whole debate. BOTH are right in their own ways, they're just two different parts of a whole. One can think of an infant with no social imprinting as having a "foundation" of sorts, the genetics, neurology and biology that allows them to be socialized. What those children are taught and grow up to believe could be thought of as the building itself. Remove the foundation and the building will collapse in an instant...never build on the foundation and all you'll have is a hole in the ground.
113549
Andrew Hussey
Posted about 4 years ago
Do you think we our programming are children right from the day they are born?
Absolutely...that's what we do...that's what our society has built itself to do. Generally I've heard the term "socialization" as opposed to "programming". Programming seems to have an unnecessary negative tinge to it...if we never socialized our children they would grow up not knowing language, not understanding even the most basic of social norms. Take a look at cases of feral children to get an idea. So yes, we do program our children from the day they are born AND it is good that we do so. That doesn't mean they're robots by any stretch, the imprints we place on the children are eventually mixed with their own imprints (for example, sexual preferences...what feels good or bad and so on is usually entirely built by the person during their own early sexual experiences and in MOST cases, hopefully, the parents have nothing to do with that).
113549
Andrew Hussey
Posted about 4 years ago
Were we left with no choice, when choosing religion?
If we had evolutionary theory at the beginning it would just have been one more bit of information...the issues of WHERE the life that's evolving came from in particular would still be a complete unknown. Metaphysics tends to begin where observable data ends, it sort of "fills the gaps" in what we know. If people had known of evolution I get the feeling they'd have just gone back a step or two and started looking at how such life came to be (and likely reach the same conclusion in that age, "god did it")... that's the feeling I get anyway...
113549
Andrew Hussey
Posted about 4 years ago
The evolution theory & religion
How the universe started has nothing to do with Evolution...evolution is behavior within an existing system. It has nothing to do with how that system started, that's an entirely other branch of science. Same with the origin of life, abiogenesis for example has nothing at all, whatsoever to do with evolution, evolution only comes into the picture AFTER life has begun to exist. Keeping that in mind, the fact that evolution doesn't touch on the origin of life or the universe, I can't think of any reason it would be incompatible with religion, save maybe a religious outright saying "evolution is wrong".
113549
Andrew Hussey
Posted about 4 years ago
should we allow the nuclear power,,???
Whether we should "allow" it or not is immaterial...it's here. This is comparable to the banning of drugs we have right now, hundreds of billions of dollars go into trying to stop drug use, production, and sale and it's never even put a dent in the actual business. All banning nuclear power will do is force it into other nations with more lax laws, lesser quality control and so on. Like it or hate it, nuclear power is here and it's not going anywhere.