You've implicitly assumed that the strategy is not also informed by contemporary research, but the particular framework being criticized, that of Mark Sisson, makes extensive reference to contemporary research.
In fact, a reader of Mark's Daily Apple is probably linked to more peer-reviewed articles than a reader of, say, Scientific American. Consider e.g.:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-definitive-guide-to-resis...
The article above makes a pretty good case for why building your diet from this foundation may not be the most reliable framework. If Sisson is using the latest scientific research to develop his system, then fine. But this is hardly a "Paleolithic" diet then. Why not just say "Avoid processed foods because they have been shown in numerous studies to have negative effects?"
I've easily had the best results with the least effort from the paleo diet. My blood sugar is down, I've lost weight and gained muscle, and feel fitter and more flexible.
It's not "Science", but I believe evidence drawn from experimentation trumps "studies" that can't be replicated, don't publish their negative results, and munge their data before publishing.
That said, I'm glad you found something that works well for you, and that provides such positive results
So basing your diet, even loosely, off a false or unclear understanding of the diets of early hunter gatherers, is probably a worse strategy than following more contemporary research on the health benefits of different dietary strategies.