It has. You haven't read recent psychology textbooks. The biggest critics of Zimbardo (and Milgram) were and are psychologists. Those ethical issues (which are not the same as epistemologic issues that make things pseudoscience) helped psychology and social science develop immensely. Anyone can double-check the assertions we are both making. What is your deal exactly?
> which are not the same as epistemologic issues that make things pseudoscience
SPE was garbage science and all attempts to replicate the results failed. Your deflection of 'ethical issues' underscores the problem with psychology when you ignore the fact that a hallmark study in the field was rigged by the experimenter to get the results he wanted.
As for textbooks:
> Zimbardo’s 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE), one of the most famous studies in psychology, is discussed in most introductory textbooks. The present study is concerned with the nature of this coverage, given that there have been myriad criticisms, especially recently, of the SPE. These criticisms concern both Zimbardo’s situationist explanation of the outcome and the study’s methodology, such as the presence of strong demand characteristics. Thirteen contemporary introductory textbooks were analyzed for their coverage of the SPE and the ensuing criticisms of it. Eleven of these texts discussed the SPE, but only six even mentioned any of the criticisms. Possible explanations for such coverage and a plan to incorporate more accurate coverage within the discussion of research methods are offered.
> ...
> Of the 11 texts, 5 did not include any criticism of the SPE, and the other 6 provided very minimal discussions of such criticism. One text included a sentence questioning the ecological validity of the SPE results but did not provide a reference. Three texts briefly discussed ethical questions created by the SPE, such as the question of whether the ethical costs of the SPE outweighed its scientific gains but did not provide references. One of these texts also stated that many researchers have challenged the legitimacy of the SPE, which would seem to be referring to the recent criticisms of the SPE, but no references were provided.
So again, you are talking about social psychology, where much of the crisis occured and persists. The SPE, even done properly, is not foundational to any work that nearly any psychologist does.
Introductory survey textbooks are essentially enrollment propaganda. They are bad places to seek expertise. Some psychologists make it part of their life work to write better ones. But it's psychologists who are criticizing and working to improve the field.
Sorry to say, I have to disengage to drive my family home.
> I am not an expert in astrology either, but I am certain it is bunk.
Consider the nature of this style of thinking from a psychological and logical/epistemic perspective, the various different forms it can manifest in, etc.
I am not an expert in astrology either, but I am certain it is bunk.