Well, my understanding is that we have not yet found any clear scientific method that will be consistently 'the one' to choose at any time. There are a few criteria that generally stand out, but a general method--no. And if there's no general method, then how can there be a general epistemology?

I mean, psychology isn't actually paradigmatic yet, is it? I don't think there actually is a general method throughout the field beyond surveys and null hypothesis significance testing--but those are too broad to be particularly symbolic of psychology imo.

In that sense, I'm not sure what value the list of perspectives you provided have i.r.t to what scientists actually do in practice and what kind of practice is successful.

Epistemology is beyond the realm of science. All I desire is for folks to be transparent and have some consistency surrounding the epistemological basis for their agreement or disagreement with particular facts.

Instead what I see, often here, is that folks switch epistemic frameworks in order to prove or rationalize their beliefs. RCT becomes the threshold for knowledge when we're discussing psychology and sociology and trust experts or "science" or vaguely "logic" becomes the basis when talking about "hard" sciences. They typically reinforce the writers preconceived validity of the topic rather than acting as the foundations of belief, and I hope we can agree that's the opposite of how it is supposed to work.