I think the overall problem is that the physicists and the biologists don't have respect for each other's skills and knowledge.
In the case of neurons you can model the membrane of the neuron and the interior and exterior to various degrees of accuracy as an EM problem, if you wish you can even add surface defects. Since the temperature is high, all quantum effects are essentially washed out, as are the need to model individual calcium ions etc., at least to first approximation. After the dust settles you can come up with a few effective parameters that model one neuron and an ODE that models its dynamics. As it turns out the ODE indeed exhibits dynamics similar to real world neurons in response to electric stimuli.
If you then couple those ODEs into larger system and try different coupling configurations (the coupling coefficients model the synapses between neurons), you have come up with a simplified model for parts of a brain.
Psychologists answer only to Biologists.
Biologists answer only to Chemists.
Chemists answer only to Physicists.
Physicists answer only to Mathematicians.
Mathematicians answer only to Philosophers.
I would add that Software Engineers answer only to Mathematicians.
Moreover while neuroscience is able to show pretty pictures of brain activity, they have made insufficient progress in understanding it. On the other hand the physicists/mathematicians that have invaded the field have a background in computational methods, simulation and hardware development. So for example a group at the University I studied had previous experience designing analog chips for feature detection in High Energy Physics, a number of years ago they re-branded themselves as a neurophysics group and recently landed a ~100 million euro+ grant in the context of the Human Brain Project.
It is also much easier to learn the jargon and read some of the softer phenomenological articles than to develop a sound understanding of the underlying mathematics and physics.