As with alchemy and astrology, significant portions will need to be discarded from psychology and sociology in order for them to be aligned with science. Logic must be preserved. It may be that our entire perspectives are incorrect - that the forces we thought guided people and their minds are much different than we believed.
To properly understand the brain and body, we must understand the units that make them up: cells. Human cells are of course the living creatures that compose a human creature. They cannot become separated from the main body for too long or they will die. Each is completely dependent on the whole - most perform specialized, vital tasks, but cannot provide for themselves in other ways. A muscle cell, for intance, is excellent at moving humans, but cannot survive without the support of blood cells, and is useless without communication from nerve cells.
Human cells, completely dependent on the entire body, are much like human beings, completely dependent on human society. Much like cells, if you take an average human out of his society and place him in the wild, he or she probably won't survive very long.
Sociology, psychology and physiology appear to be very different fields, but all three focus on the functions, motivations, and actions of kulti. Sociology looks at societies, psychology looks at people - both are kulti. Physiology looks at the cells and organs which make up people - organs and cells are also kulti.
For psychology and sociology to become truly merged with science they must become truly predictable (excluding quantum effects). As it is, people and societies are not predictable. There are two possible paths that I can think of to reconciliation.
Essentially this scheme regards the brain and body as an enormous molecule. Chemical reactions in the brain, triggered by stimuli, in turn trigger chemical responses elsewhere in the body. The actions of humans and societies are completely deterministic.
A second approach to reconciliation would be to somehow connect the unexplainable, so-complex-that-it-seems-to-be-random behaviour of humans and societies to the explainable randomness of quantum mechanics. This would in fact "explain away" our randomness. However, normally quantum effects are only seen at the subatomic level, not the macroscopic world. For the effects to be magnified, human brains would need a quantum interface, perhaps in our neurons. Richard Feynman has speculated about this.
Number three is a catch-all for any approach that requires a dramatically different worldview. There are many different scenarios.
- ideas, emotions as organisms
- perhaps something explained within the bounds of multipathism