Both Skinnerians and Gibsonians have been very successful as psychologists, and both groups have achieved results that are undeniable psychological milestones. So these views are neither nonstarters, nor obviously crazy. (Chemero & Silberstein, 2008, pp. 4-5).This seems to me a bit simplistic.
For one thing, recall that the Ptolemaic astronomers were very successful as astronomers and had results that are undeniable astronomical milestones, but much of their theory was wrong. So, one can still achieve results with a flawed theory.
For another, I think that one has to recognize that theories have different parts (to speak generically). Some parts might be true and others false. So, maybe it is true that the world contains affordances, but false that these are directly perceived. Indeed, one philosophical sort of project might be to draw distinctions among the components of theories to see how evidence supports one or another of them.
For a third, I wouldn't want to undertake the burden of proof to show that Skinnerian or Gibsonian psychology is a nonstarter or obviously crazy. (Maybe just crazy?) Maybe just wrong on certain important points.
Chemero, A., & Silberstein, M. (2008). After the Philosophy of Mind: Replacing Scholasticism with Science. Philosophy of Science, 75, 1-27.