This paper starts from the notion that there are two approaches to the description of phenomena: a western, scientific approach which dichotomies, and a eastern, humanistic approach which is integrative and dialectical. In the western form, the highest form of logic depends on the law of the excluded middle, and opposing pairs of concepts are created: mind/brain, spirit/body and so on. In contrast with that, eastern logic emphasizes the unity of opposites and balance in a holistic worldview. The paper then goes on to look at one area of western science, the neuroscience of decision making, and shows how destructive it is to understanding the majority of decisions to attempt to lift decisions, or release decisions from their context in this analytic way. The paper concludes that western science might benefit from a careful study of eastern approaches to unity, which might actually fit more comfortably with the notions of complexity that western science is now struggling to comprehend. Above all, the analytical approach focuses on the short term and the context free, which means that it has little to say about education or the concerns of educators and educationists.