The false separation between research in brain science and psychology

I was recently in a Psychology Library picking out interesting things to read in journals. It amused me to notice the journals I selected were of 2 types: psychology and brain science. Though both subjects interest me, I was dissatisfied with both, and a little reflection showed me why.

Brain science journals are still studying psychological issues that are too small because that is within the scope of the things they can resolve with brain observations. Psychology journals also tackle issues that are, in a way too small, because that is within the scope of things that can be resolved with the methods of psychological experiments (statistics, questionnaires, etc.). In some way, the issues of psychology journals are interesting, but there is another problem---these journals don't really prove things due to the limitations of their methods.

I also realized the solution.

Brain scientists need to start getting more aggressive and tackle questions of larger scope---similar to the questions psychological philosophers tackle in their books, questions about the nature of perception, conceptualization, decision-making, goal formation, action, etc.

It is true that these experiments will be failed scientific experiments at this time; our scientific knowledge of the brain is not yet strong enough, so these experiments will be over-aggressive, not sufficiently controlled, and fail to prove anything. They might even have trouble getting published in a brain science journal.

But they will yield real, interesting knowledge on significant questions about the mind, and that is what we need.