Most 'psychological disorders' today are not diagnosed based on specific physical-chemical tests, i.e. one can say with high certainty that a patient has drug-resistant tuberculosis using a PCR test. In contrast, there are no definitive tests for everything from ADHD to schizophrenia to bipolar disorder to depression, although more diagnoses lead to more pharma drug sales...
I'm not sure how much real science they have in psychology in particular. I'm sure there's some, like I've heard they can use fMRI to analyze the language region of the brain to identify what kind of speech disorder you have. But certainly a lot of publications cross the line.
We can still be fair and say they do help a lot of people with therapy, even if they don't really understand why. Historically craftsmen were ahead of scientists in making working technologies. They weren't necessarily peddling in scams and nonsense, they were just not backed by real science.
The high-effort piece of writing adds citation-based examples of semi-specialist wording.. like someone that is a credentialed school counselor, but is not in the health professions per-se. Well guess what, you now have religious schools and also splinter educational environments to deal with as your audience.. good luck with that, Science is not going to settle cultural commitments in all cases. nor should it, I will argue.
Psychology has always been seen as a pseudo-science in some corners, unlike hard sciences backed by math. This well-intentioned and somewhat urgent writing tries to corral the "three pillars of communication" listed above, and as usual, will only get so far IMHO ..