This paper first discusses the history of crisis and criticism in psychology, seeing how it was instrumented by psychologists against other psychological trends, then became a litterary genre with a historical inscription that used grand narrative as a frame for accusing others. It then follows the history of criticism and crisis to move on to Thomas Teo's (2005) classification of criticism and discuss the question of the relationship between science, psychology, and politics. The contemporary crisis of reproducibility was opened by the 2015 paper of Open science collaboration. Thus, I formalize two types of research models, the formal and the pragmatic, and present Chris Green's (2017) solution to the crisis. I comment on the advantages of Green's solution, but also analyze the problems it raises. Among these problems is the question of the relevance of theoretical models in psychology, which requires the expertise of historians and epistemologists. Presenting two examples from the field of developmental psychology (number and early skills) shows how they follow a blind epistemology. In my critique, I show that a solution could be to call on expertise from both the history of psychology and epistemology. In conclusion, I argue that psychologists should promote interdisciplinarity and collaborate with historians of psychology and epistemologists as experts on pertinence. I show how this is a solution inspired by the Piagetian spirit of rigor and inventiveness.