This is an incredibly important idea. The scientific process has been corrupted by far too much pseudoscience and not near enough actual science. If the data say you are wrong, you are wrong. That doesn't mean finagle the data until you get the result you want, perform endless subgroup analyses, etc. If a theory is wrong, throw it out and start again. Quit salvaging the corpse of broken theory.
Did you ever do academic research in one of the softer disciplines? Because it sounds like you didn't.
I'm pretty critical of psychology (worked in neuro/cogsci for about 18 years). I reckon 95% of its output is wrong. But that's not because of pseudo-science. All theories in psychology are wrong. We've got no idea how the brain/mind works. All we can do is try to make sense of the experimental data that's available, come up with an idea that appears slightly better or has a different angle, contrast it with competing ideas in the same area, and keep defending it until it's utterly destroyed. If you would follow your rather rigid process, theorizing, and consequently experimenting, would stop overnight. It's not the way out of the swamp.
That also means that we should not use psychological theory as evidence for anything, and certainly not for policy making. Some of the applied research can be used though, if it's been established properly and repeatedly (another weakness in much of the social sciences).
I’ve read some Abstract conclusions in the last couple years that are so blatantly trying to fit their data result into some preconceived scheme from their hypothesis it’s laughable.
