&gt; Just different levels of abstraction.<p>From a scientific perspective, it&#x27;s much more important than that. Neuroscience has empirical evidence, theories, and is a science. Psychology has anecdotes, no testable, falsifiable theories, and, for lack of empirical evidence, cannot be a science.<p>&gt; Basically, I think you&#x27;re painting a false dichotomy.<p>So is the director of the NIMH:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.newyorker.com&#x2F;tech&#x2F;elements&#x2F;the-rats-of-n-i-m-h" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.newyorker.com&#x2F;tech&#x2F;elements&#x2F;the-rats-of-n-i-m-h</a><p>Quote: &quot;America’s psychiatrist-in-chief seemed to be reiterating what many had been saying all along: that psychiatry was a pseudoscience, unworthy of inclusion in the medical kingdom.&quot;<p>&gt; The dream would be to be able to put all these levels of abstractions together, and have good mappings between them.<p>Yes, absolutely, and I think this will eventually happen within neuroscience. But focusing on the mind, something inaccessible to empirical investigation, is not the road to that goal.