Can science be wrong about the brain?

This isn't a new thing; in the 1960s a treatment was invented for hydrocephaIic babies which meant that for the first time they could survive for more than a few days. Around 30 years ago I saw a TV programme about one of these who had grown to adulthood. It was around this time that early body scanners were available, and a scan showed that he had no more that a rind of brain 1 cm thick on the inside of his skull, and a void where the rest of the brain should be. I think he had around 10% of "normal" brain mass. The reason why this wasn't suspected was partly due to his exceptional intelligence (he had just got a advanced mathematics degree with honours).

That page's website is a "Gee-whiz" type of thing with very little scientific contents, and I don't think it is any evidence that science is "wrong" about the brain. It is just a great deal more adaptable than many people realise.

Recalling Scarecrow's speech:

How little of ours then must we be using

I usually do not care for short term memories, since many try to over compensate and act like long term memories.

Maybe the brain and memory is software, like computers.

I usually do not care for short term memories, since many try to over compensate and act like long term memories. >>

Some kind of stimulus causes us to remember things, I don't think we have any control over it-- it just happens.

How little of ours then must we be using >>

Maybe we don't need our brains at all, maybe memory is all we need, memory of what we did, how and why is enough analyzing.

Maybe we don't need our hearts or livers, or arms or legs?

Memory is not software... at least not in computers.

The brain is massively redundant in terms of cell numbers and has the ability to regenerate and reorganise after damage. If this was not so, we would not survive beyond early infancy.

Maybe the sky is a kind of plastic or wooden sheet, painted blue by an unknown method. Maybe potatoes have souls. Maybe I am the Egg Man.

If you want a one word answer to your question, then YES, scientists can be wrong about the brain.
Just like they can be wrong about everything else.
Science constantly reevaluates and reforms their opinions as new facts come in.

Coo-coo cajoo . . .

I am the egg man,
I am the walrus.

I was just trying to remember what came after, "I am the egg man."

Then why do our politicians - they do have complete brains, right? Why do the come up with such vacuum headed ideas?

Is it the moronic miasma? Tell me, is there really a moronic miasma inflating all our congressional domes? I've heard of this; so don't try to fun me. Just give it to me straight. . .

Tell me, is there really a moronic miasma inflating all our congressional domes? I've heard of this; so don't try to fun me. Just give it to me straight. . . >>

Hard to tell if congress is just playing to their moronic base, or if that's what they really are, heartless megalomaniacs that believe politics are more important than people's health, jobs, and lives, the people they are supposed to be working for, whose taxes pay their over inflated salaries and perks

Well put Rick

But it's our fault isn't it

Wowwww unbelievable ..!!! Human body is full of suspense. Science is very amazingly interesting and everything is possible in science.