That’s not the case with computer science, at least in systems subfields like filesystems, where theories can be implemented in isolation and shown to either work or not.
Proof of correctness doesn't rely on having a large cohort of test subjects undergoing an experimental trial of some sort, and then interpreting the results with statistical models, distributions, p-values, etc.
I don't know psychology in depth, but if there are similar kinds proofs without requiring statistical analysis of a large experimental cohort, then I don't think Taleb's criticisms are aimed at those either.
It's the fundamental problem of knowledge - can truth be known via logic and reason, or via empiricism and observation? The answer to both is, sometimes, but with caveats.
Peter Norvig also wrote a good take on all the ways studies using experimental cohorts can go wrong: https://norvig.com/experiment-design.html
There is no paranoia, an allegory is an ivory tower of studies about language from non native speakers with a PhD, and a native speaker who gets no recognition for using it daily but doesn’t have a fancy diploma or credentials so someone who speaks “proper” Spanish from Spain who has never been to Spain is more “credible” than the Mexican speaking “improper” Spanish daily.
Academia is to be ignored unless it’s relevant, Fritz Harber didn’t need the Nobel prize to have real world effects in nitrogen fixing to help farmers grow and sustain our population, Obama wasn’t more relevant because of his Nobel prize, and Perelman’s refusal of the Fields Medal doesn’t change his contributions.