Karen; a response (hopefully constructive):
On Theory — Yes, Psych is a complex topic. Much theory is only describing a tiny slice of reality. Theories are generally way over promoted and seldom acknowledge complexity. Oxcam’s razor seek’s the simplest solution, but it should not be an excuse to oversimplify. To often, people only want to knock down straw men when discussing theory instead of discussing when a theory applies, how it applies and where it is lacking. My only critique of your prediction theory is if you totalize it by saying this is all you ned to understand. I believe many (not all) behaviorist dislike disability rights advocates be cause it challenges their authority and the simplicity of there theoretical understandings. People don’t like to do this because it takes alot of mental energy and work.
On Philosophical Foundations
I’m a pragmatist a la Dewey, Wittgenstein, Vygotsky, Mead etc. . .. So one thing that means is that I believe Skinner wasn’t wrong, he just didn’t understand (or chose not to understand) Wittgenstein and the importance of Wittgenstein’s work for his practice (as well as the work of others). You must be able to say; what is needed in this situation? Ritalin, Behavior Modification, or a change in educational goals and pedagogical strategies. All three can be very helpful, but all to often the third is not even on the table.
There is a crisis in replication: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
And Paul Meehl critizied psychological methods long ago: http://www.psych.umn.edu/people/meehlp/WebNEW/PUBLICATIONS/144WhySummaries.pdf
Research needs to improve!
Are most researchers interested first and formost in improving psychological and educational practice or in gaining tenure? My suspicion is that there is more disfunction here than is generally acknowledged
Overall, I believe knowledge begins with acknowledgement.