A Suggested Principle of Complementarity for Psychology In Theory, Not Method

A distinction between the Copenhagen Interpretation and complementarity is underscored, with the former based on methodological effects (i. e., disturbance) and the latter on nonmechanical theoretical understandings of empirical findings. Psychology cannot have a Copenhagen Interpretation per se because it lacks clear experimental data comparable to the wave-versus-particlefindings on the nature of light. Psychology's problems do not stem from method but from the uncertain and confusing grounds that predicate its theories. Physikos, Bios, Socius, and Logos are presented as complementary grounds for theoretical explanation. It is advised that a theorist try to stay within just one ground at a time, although he or she can then shift to a complementary ground to explain the same target without being inconsistent.