When the evidence is sketchy or fabricated (or p-hacked), as in psychology, the label "evidence based" doesn't mean very much.
Just look at decades of research into nutrition, and note that we haven't moved very far beyond "vitamin c prevents scurvy" and "too much of anything is bad". Even identifying at what point the amount of things like "too much" of salt or cholesterol crosses the line of "too much" remains contentious.
Certain diagnostic fields have obviously grown leaps and bounds, as have certain categories of medicines. On the other hand, there are counter examples aplenty.
The fact that the term "evidence-based" science exists in medicine research is an indication of a big problem to start with.
I understand the premise of the idea and that more scientists in the field are trying to make their research more rigorous. But, this also indicates that the research that has been done until recently was NOT "evidence-based", hence not very credible and reproducible.
I think that depends on whether those people believe that evidence-based medicine is scientific.