As painful as it is for me as a professional to accept this, what you said is largely true unfortunately. I wouldn't say that everything in this field is pseudoscience, but the profession, as a whole, doesn't strive to build a solid scientific foundation for its methods. Most of the current methods are largely based on theories that are more or less speculative, not backed by valid thorough research.

Ironically, while it's become a mainstream habit among professionals and lay people both to arrogantly criticize Freud, he was the only one who made the best effort to back his theories with empirical evidence. No other theories have been backed by any objective empirical data. That doesn't necessarily mean that they don't reflect some realities of human nature or that they are unhelpful, but it means that people are uninformed about the fact that a big chunk of the work their therapist are doing is not based on science, and this lack of informed consent, in and of itself, is unethical.

The thing is that research CAN and MUST be done in psychotherapy and it must be done in large quantities because at this point in history this profession is still largely in its infancy and we know too little to pretend that we are "treating" "disorders" in the same way medical doctors treat physical symptoms.

When it comes to physical ailments, there is a clarity of the cause, the procedures and the expected outcomes. There is no such clarity in psychotherapy. Not even close. So it's time to be honest about it.