I've always come down squarely in favor of the practicioners of anything over the defenders of the same. Defenders always need to oversimplify, and if I believe in anything- if belief is the right term- it's in the complexity, the irreducibility, of the world. Why shouldn't I prefer market players to economists? After all, athletes aren't interested in the rules, they're interested in the game.

That last sentence is actually a very good description of the problems of linguistics, consciousness studies et al.
What is the difference between the rules and the game?

"I prefer a history of systems to a theory of them. Theory by its nature excludes psychology. I have no interest in the 'theory' of Catholicism, of Lutheranism, Judaism or Islam. I am interested, if I am at all, in their history."

History is an intellectual pursuit predicated on the placement of itself within its own field of vision.
Philosophy, at this point, is predicated upon its absence from the world.