title: Neurological exclusiveness or unified science inclusiveness: Comment on Schwartz et al. (2016).
abstract: Schwartz, Lilienfeld, Meca, and Sauvigné (2016) argue effectively and productively that neuroscience is monistic (excludes other fields) in a way that affects negatively psychology department makeup, psychology grant support, and the way students are trained. They conclude, rather, that it is important to effect an inclusion of different fields of psychology. This paper broadens and strengthens their position. However, it also points out that a call for inclusiveness raises a central question. How is inclusiveness to be accomplished? Without stipulation to the contrary the call is for an eclecticism. As Schwartz et al. indicate, unified theory is now rejected because grand theory in the past has been monistic. However, science moves on; there are unified theories today that are inclusive. Thus, development of an area in psychology is needed that studies, evaluates, and advances works that unify inclusively, the present article being an example. (PsycINFO Database Record
authors.affiliation: University of Hawaii at Manoa.
authors.forename: Arthur W
authors.initials: AW
authors.lastname: Staats
mesh_terms: D006801:Humans; D009488:Neurosciences; D012586:Science