As to the relationship between the social sciences of “human behavior” (praxeology, economics, and so on), and the natural sciences of “human behavior” (neuroscence, psychology, and so forth).
First of all, I think of them as simply 2 different kinds of models for predicting the same kind of thing. In one model (the social science one), we see other people as conscious. And in the other one (the natural science one), we see them as nothing but 3D objects. In the 1st one, I find that one thing (visualizing something or whatever) causes another thing (my body to move in some way), and later I find if make the same exact assumption about other people, I can predict their movements pretty well. It’s not like I ever actually see their thoughts; it’s just if I use that idea to model how their body would move, I get pretty good results in terms of guessing what they’re gonna do next. But in the 2nd, we simply find that one movement in 3D space (such as some neurons firing or something) causes another movement in 3D space (such as somebody’s arm moving or whatever). We merely find that how one part of somebody’s body moves (their brain or whatever) determines how another part will move (their arms, legs, and so on). One models other people on myself; and the other simply sees them as 3D objects.
So in light of that, I would say that they can back each other up. If the social science model predicts X, and the natural science model predicts the same thing (X), that’s some sort of corroboration, right? Wouldn’t I be more confident about the prediction or something? I guess.
Thoughts?