Why is there such a lack of interest in neuroscience?

Sir Frederick mmcneill at fuzzysys.com
Sun Jan 9 09:36:49 EST 2005


On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 08:08:45 -0500, r norman <rsn_ at _comcast.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 19:17:19 -0800, Sir Frederick
><mmcneill at fuzzysys.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 21:02:24 -0500, r norman <rsn_ at _comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 17:44:09 -0800, Sir Frederick
>>><mmcneill at fuzzysys.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Why is there such a lack of interest in neuroscience?
>>>>The whole issue of brain structure and function is IMO
>>>>the most important of all.
>>>
>>>For some funny reason, it occurs to me that everybody that can read
>>>your question in this news group has an extraordinarily HIGH interest
>>>in neuroscience!
>>
>>Then those with an extraordinarily HIGH interest in neuroscience
>>should be aware of their minority. Why is this interest a minority?
>>
>>>
>>>To rephrase -- why is there such an interest in neuro but so little
>>>interest in science?
>>
>>Please explain this question. 
>
>Originally, as the following guideline indicates, bionet was set up as
>a resource for active scientists to discuss their work:
>
>"The BIOSCI newsgroup network was developed to allow easy worldwide
>communications between biological scientists who work on a variety of
>computer networks.
>...
>"List of BIOSCI Newsgroup Topics
>...
>   NEUROSCIENCE      Discussions about research in the neurosciences"
>
>(from http://www.bio.net/docs/biosci-us.infosheet)
>
>or 
>
>"Most other BIOSCI newsgroups [including bionet.neuroscience] are
>dedicated to professional discussions in the area defined by the name
>of the newsgroup"
> (from http://www.bio.net/BIOSCI/biosci.faq)
>
>The original idea was that this group was a forum for professionals to
>discuss issues directly related to neuroscience research. Your (Sir
>Frederick's) suggestion for an alt.neuroscience group for general and
>open discussion about all sorts of neurobiology related ideas by
>anyone and everyone is welcome.  Unfortunately, it will never succeed
>specifically for the reason that prompted your question in the first
>place.
>
>To be a bit more specific,  speculation about the "mind" is a fairly
>arcane, but still very widespread subject.  Speculation about the
>"brain" and its operation is rather more specialized.  Actual
>discussion about the brain and its operation based on knowledge
>obtained from experiments and calculations published in refereed
>primary research publications is a very specialized field requiring
>extensive background and training.  It is the latter area that I call
>"science".   But, then, I am a grumpy and curmudgeonly old man set in
>my ways.
>
>
>
>
Thank you. 
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcneill at fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
http://members.cox.net/fmmcneill/
*************************
Phrase of the week :
"Who does Not Know the Truth, is simply a Fool...
Yet who Knows the Truth and Calls it a Lie, is a Criminal."
- In "Galileo Galilei" by Berthold Brecht (1898-1956)
:-))))Snort!)
*************************



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list