Theory is just that theory. If it were tested it could be law. That is why it is Einstein's theory of relativity and Newtons law of gravity. There are a whole lot of misconceptions about epistemology floating around.

A good theory is general enough to encompass the problem state it is meant to explain. Read some Thomas Kuhn for more on that topic.

A technique, an empirical study, a method should be testable by real world apparatus in such a way as a specific instance can be proven. The goal though not necessarily rule is to have enough validity to statistically apply that result to other cases. Which is a violation of statistical rules (never extrapolating beyond the data set).

All the other stuff about philosophers and social workers is just dirty water and anti-intellectualism. The empirical evidence of an anecdotal singular case widened to encompass the broader discipline and varieties of culture is a violation of all that scientific method stuff too. It is a ethnocentric trait realized in bias to refute debate rather than extend understanding.

Nobody builds a car all at one time. You build small components, that become bigger components, and then you put those components together and finally you go bankrupt even after you get a huge bail out from the feds.

If you want to discuss theoretical constructs and models of behavior you will have to tease those out separately from anecdotal evidence of techniques.

Why does 3GW, 4GW, and other theories get so much air play? They are generalizable, they are holistic, they can define or describe large patterns of behavior. Flip all of that around to criticize them too. If they were narrow and only defined small things they would be poor theoretical constructs. E=mc2 was great, but Einstein was looking for the greatest theory of all. The one that defined everything. The ultimate general use theory.