Why is there such a lack of interest in neuroscience?

Sir Frederick mmcneill at fuzzysys.com
Sun Jan 9 01:18:25 EST 2005

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 05:14:22 GMT, Michael Olea <oleaj at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>in article o141u05ig3p83hg0g40jir6hnhgs8d118n at 4ax.com, r norman at
>rsn_ at _comcast.net wrote on 1/8/05 6:02 PM:
>> 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!
>> To rephrase -- why is there such an interest in neuro but so little
>> interest in science?
>But as to the original question, why is there such a lack of interest in
>neuroscience, I wonder what is the emprirical basis of that question - lack
>of interest compared to what?

The number of posts here per unit time versus the number PUT in many other 
NGs. And the number of active posters. 
Also, this is the only neuroscience 
NG of any sort out of some 30,000!

> How was interest quantified, and by what
>standard was it found lacking?

Maybe there is a genetic proclivity for people to ignore
their brain, just as they ignore their liver. It takes a scientific
understanding to infer brain activity, most people do not 
have that. However "modern" days should have produced more with 
scientific understanding IMO.
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcneill at fuzzysys.com
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)

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net