The specific phenomenon described in this paper has been documented in other fields in other ways as well: retracted papers, for instance, tend to continue to be cited.
There’s no reason to not consider psychology/sociology/etc real sciences without air quotes.
I recall reading a few years ago about the inability to replicate computer science papers.
You have probably heard about the Harvard professor who specializes in dishonesty being caught out for fabricating results (not the one caught out for plagiarism or reduplicative language depending on who you ask).
Or maybe you remember the "research" for the most dominant reading programs being debunked and exposed as a, essentially, cult of personality that left kids unable to read but the cultists rich.
Iow, a fair amount of Modern Science is post-factual, and oriented towards publication and money. The field doesn't seem to matter.
There are many reasons why "Science advances one gravestone at a time"...
Unfortunately, I don't see gravestones as offering a good basis for rejuvenation. It's about the systemic incentives, not individuals so ossified in their thinking that they suppress alternative approaches and theories.