In the article we argue a double thesis. The first premise suggests that the different forms of research in psychology should take the exercise of criticism seriously. The second premise makes a rational criticism when theory and experience take place in research practices. Some researchers are in a double risk: either part of an implicit conception of experience according to which it is not useful to criticize the theoretical assumptions but only to illustrate them, or it is also implicitly considered that theories are closed dogmas that cannot be rationally criticized. For this reason, we question divisions among researchers, for example, the distinction between qualitative and quantitative, theoretical and empirical research, etc. We argue that, despite their efforts to differentiate, researchers are more alike than they would be willing to acknowledge.