I tend to see discipline differences sometimes as a level of analysis issue. Levels range from the quark-boson-nano tiny unseeable particles, to giant social systems and beyond.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard someone working at level N imply that level N+1 isn’t really science. Or that N-1 is just too myopic to even find anything of real use. Of course people are going to work at the level they find the most interesting. Nothing wrong with that. Admittedly I think my level is much more interesting than N-1 or N+1.
I’ve been chatting a little with a researcher who is pretty low level for my department let’s call him Fred. If we’re N Fred is N-0.5. Fred of course has stories of giving talks to N-1 (or N-2) departments and occasionally getting the “is this really science?” rebuff. At least one person has literally wagged his finger in Fred’s face and claimed that his method is totally worthless. Mind you, Fred does quite well publication wise. And there are many scientists in N-1 departments relating their work to his methods. So this isn’t the dominant feeling.
Of course, Fred totally did the same thing when we were talking methods. He kind of offhandedly dismissed a particular method, I pressed him to elaborate as to why, he hemmed and hawed and then basically said “Well it just doesn’t say anything about the level that I am interested in”
Seems that occasional refreshers on the difference between personal interests and scientific usefulness are needed.