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

I think in this mix of differing epistemologies, you can get at certain questions using one approach that you can't get at with others. So long as one isn't telling the other what they can and can't explore, it shouldn't be a problem.

Unfortunately it *has* been a problem...

Often times the non-scientists *do* tell the scientists what they can and can't study. This is basically what'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/

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's our favorite paradigm for exploring questions, we risk committing this path ourselves.