Barriers in Neuroscience?

[KEITH DALLAS]

A previous article writes: 
> These people provided theories that science built on and is still 
> building on.  Something I really like about science is this...  Say
> Joe Scientist develops ____ theory.  For 10 years that theory adequately
> describes what it was supposed to.  Along comes a new theory that 
> completely proves the old theory wrong.  Now Joe Scientist probably won't
> eagerly accept this new theory, but when presented with convincing 
> evidence---Joe Scientist (if he's a good scientist) will admit that his
> theory was wrong and embrace the new one.  Creationism doesn't seem to 
> operate that way.  Religion is supposed to deal with faith.  It's just 
> apples and oranges as someone else mentioned.
> 
> More thoughts.  Say we're teaching a science course and we do mention
> a famous theory that is no longer considered to adequately describe
> --whatever.  In a science course it's perfectly normal to say that
> so and so developed such and such theory, but now we know that *this*
> is what is really going on.  You can't do that with creationism.  What
> they want is for their theory to be thought of as describing--whatever
> equally well as the scientific theory.
> 
>>: the history of scienctific ideas and methods has a definite place in a
>>: science curriculum.
> 

Whether an idea is wrong or not is not the only issue.  How a scientist thinks	
is also important.  The ideas of yesterday prompted the questions of today.  I
think it is important to learn about older (even incorrect) theories and
concepts.  They show us how a problem was approached and (possibly) solved.