Good morning Gerwyn and Angela,
I agree especially with the last two paragraphs - so don't fear, Angela! - and mostly with the rest, though I am a little bit more skeptical about "the scientific method" than you are, not because it doesn't exist, but because it is difficult to apply well especially in (would be) sciences like sociology and psychology.
Thus, for example, most of so-called "evidence based science" seems to me evident nonsense, with all or nearly all real intelligence filtered out by procedures and formats, that indeed do enable the average IQ of 115 to write what looks like Real Science also with what looks like Real Statistics and a Real Scientific Design, but is none of these things, but mostly a mockery, a travesty, or a parody if it were done on purpose.
And Wessely plays that game + a linguistic game derived from the postmodernists (who are in part the Frankfurter Schule in new fashionable clothes), that consists mostly of politically correct redefining of concepts and terms so they become fit for one's own political/financial ends and also in giving a moral slant to all one's science (for all is always "in the interests of the patients", "to empower patients", "to help patients" ad nauseam), also were that is not to the point at all. (That is one of the postmodern fallacies Wessely and indeed much of medical practioners in my country have adopted: Everything is seen and judged and presented in moral terms, rather than in terms of truth or probability.)
All i really ask is that researchers of whatever hue define their terms and declare their theoretical perspectives and prejudices
in my (extensive) experiences only lead to protracted debates (for decades!) on what are the proper terms, perspectives and prejudices, generally debated by people who were in majority not really interested in real science (but in "feminist science", "critical science", "postmodern science", "marxist science" a.s.o.) and who in vast majority, in my firm estimate, were not sufficiently intelligent nor sufficiently well educated to take part in such debates, if the debate were to be rational, scientific, and informed by relevant knowledge.
And there is more to it than
They produce critiqes based on nothing but predjudice supposition and belief.
Part of it is also based on - what seems to me naive - political or moral idealism, especially among students; rather a lot of it, at least in Holland in the universities, was well-orchestrated careerism (to get "Our Kind Of Folks" in the university); and most of it was and is simply stupid, and maintained by folks that should not have been in a university for lack of genuine nous and lack of any genuine interest in science (other than the status and income it provides).
But now I am going to try to wake up.