In looking at a post on twitter from a somewhat well-known psychologist Tal Yarkoni, he references a paper which lists multiple sets of competing theories in Psychology that have not been resolved.
This is interesting to me and related to my question on selecting "the most well supported" among competing theories of generalized anxiety disorder (link). But, I could see this being related in other areas, such as procrastination research where psychologists with different focuses explain the phenomena differently (as elaborated in this video.)
As an aspiring research scientist, I am curious what it takes today to resolve competing theories in Psychological science? I read that it may take a joint research paper between the authors of the differing theories with conditions of what defines sufficient evidence, but certainly there must be another way, because some authors may be deceased, unavailable, etc.
Moreover, why might these disputations, it seems like there are 13 of them (26 theories in total), some dating back to the 50s, still be unresolved today?
I think this question should be germane to the topic, because in a meta post here, the moderator agrees that meta-science posts are fair questions for this site.