I think you're kind of mischaracterizing this article. The conclusion drawn isn't really that psychological research is wrong per se, but that the statistical and methodological tools which we _believed_ suffice to allow us to formulate experiments that make decisive epistemological statements apparently do not do so. Scott Alexander isn't imputing the behavior of most of these scientists or even the endeavor of social psychological research. He is simply observing that our methods clearly are insufficient to the end of attributing results strong epistemological weight.
> I think you're kind of mischaracterizing this article. The conclusion drawn isn't really that psychological research is wrong per se
This is a characterization that you have just made, not one that the person you are replying to made. They were very clear: "The biggest factor impacting the outcome of an experiment in psych is what the researcher conducting the study wants to be true."
Even to say something is "more pseudo than science" almost directly contradicts your characterization, because it implies that there is both science and pseudoscience.
