In my own field of anthropology, there is a historical divide between scientific and non-scientific approaches that has largely been viewed as irreconcilable. I tend to view that as true, but beneficial. https://twitter.com/EPoe187/status/1249792823433592833">https://twitter.com/EPoe187/s...

I think in this mix of differing epistemologies, you can get at certain questions using one approach that you can& #39;t get at with others. So long as one isn& #39;t telling the other what they can and can& #39;t explore, it shouldn& #39;t be a problem.

Unfortunately it *has* been a problem...

Often times the non-scientists *do* tell the scientists what they can and can& #39;t study. This is basically what& #39;s at the heart of the split. Blogpost here: https://culturologies.wordpress.com/2019/01/29/the-anthropological-four-field-approach-american-anthropologist-wants-science-back/">https://culturologies.wordpress.com/2019/01/2...

I think this sort of epistemological absolutism is dangerous to knowledge generation, and when we say things like, "all psychologists will/should be evolutionary psychologists," because it& #39;s our favorite paradigm for exploring questions, we risk committing this path ourselves.