Interest and synthesis
Psychology since 1945 has been characterized by two aspects: IGNORISM and dogmatic analysis.
IGNORISM hides the knowledge of the predecessors such as Romanes, Morgan, Lewes, Lessing … as well as the results of other sciences.
The essential tool for IGNORISM is the dogmatization of the analysis.
Any analytical separation, such as that between body and mind, natural sciences and humanities, is permitted and downright necessary as a fiction in Vaihinger‘s sense. But you always have to be aware that this is fiction and not reality.
But modern psychology turns the analytical separation into a dogma, frays the whole into thousands of individual parts, and then, like behaviorism, for example, unjustifiably draws conclusions from these individual parts to the whole, as GH Lewes has explained in detail.
In order to avoid errors, a re-synthesis of the fictionally separated components is also necessary. Vygotsky already chose the example of water for clarification, the properties of which are in no way reflected in its components, hydrogen and oxygen. While water puts out a fire, hydrogen burns and oxygen promotes combustion. Something similar can also be found in GH Lewes.
Psychonomy must therefore, like a watchmaker, who also reassembles the watch after the “analysis”, understand the analysis as permitted FICTION and always strive for a synthesis.
And also take into account the findings of both the predecessors (see the REdition Schmidt) as well as other sciences, such as ethology.
Also, the dogma of “logical dualism” of either-or must be avoided, so that e.g. quantitative as well as qualitative research cannot be viewed as opposites but as complementary.