In Language Faculty Science, I do not address issues like this almost at all, because the book is concerned with how language faculty science can be pursued as an exact science (a scientific issue), not with how the field is (or has been) (which I think is more of a sociological issue, about which one may find insightful discussion in Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

My (published) works for the past 10 years often address both the scientific issues and the sociological issues (if only indirectly). And I think that that was related to the fact that the level of conceptual articulation of the methodology for language faculty science as an exact science was qualitatively lower then than it is now. (One tends to talk loud when one does not have a strong basis for what one has to say...)

Some people (faculty and students) have told me that it would be useful (for them) if I presented language faculty science as an exact science in relation/comparison to what is being practiced in the field. I understand their point.

I have, however, made the tactical decision to focus on the scientific issues in Language Faculty Science mostly because I do not have enough space for sociological discussion, in accordance with the page limit imposed by the contract with the publisher. The tactical decision was made in part because I feel that the scientific issues and the sociological issues should be addressed separately especially when the field at large does not seem to understand how language faculty science can be pursued as an exact science.