Cutting away everything else, the important symptom given in the paper is I. F. If you're not doing experiments that replicate, then you aren't finding out anything. All the other symptoms are basically irrelevant, or consequences of I. F. And the central cause of I. F seems to be given down in III. B. Apparently the only standard for psychological research is that you can mathematically torture at least one correlation of p < .05 out of the data.

Well, if you've got enough factors that you're measuring, and are willing to go enough orders of analysis, you can almost certainly find a correlation that is "significant". And finding it won't actually teach you anything.

So, assuming the paper is correct on those points, the problem with psychology-as-a-science is that it collects random noise and assigns meaning to it, and teaches its students to do the same.