‘A thought-provoking paper proposes a way to advance psychology: by encouraging researchers to ignore previous work in the field.
The piece is called Unburdening the Shoulders of Giants: A Quest for Disconnected Academic Psychology and it appeared in Perspectives on Psychological Science.
According to author Dario Krpan, academic psychology is failing to fully explore the space of possible theories. In other words, it is stuck in an intellectual rut (or ruts)….’
— Via Discover
Follow Me Here... 
Not sure what terms are correct for this idea, but I will use “academic psychology” fpr studies that do not involve “treatment” of “Patients”; and “diagnostic psychology” that does “treat” “patients”. I have no beef about the former. Rigorous study of anything is good, imo. But for the latter, I have serious criticism, notably that, afaict, there is no standard of “value” for it, nothing like a warranty or guarantee of satisfaction. (Ref. using this definition : “Warranty, is often confused with the term guarantee, which implies a commitment given by the seller concerning the product quality. The main difference between warranty and guarantee is that while the former is written, the latter is implied.”) Diagnostic psychology (and psychotherapy included) seems to depend on a customer thinking/feeling/guessing/supposing that s’he has benefited, and the seller of services is allowed simply to shrug and say, “Well, that’s how it is. You pay me so that you will feel better when you want to feel better.” That’s mighty close to quackery, if not well into it.
I’m sure the audacity of that statement is nothing new and that there are much more polished, less vulnerable responses to the charge, and I’m looking forward to reading them.
LikeLike