At any rate, if you want to turn Socionics into a "science", and since theories are not actually based on anything other than other pre-existing theories, you must build up the theory on top of already existing scientific theories. That's how science makes progress. And that would mean decades of worth of psychological theories built up on decades of worth of researches and studies.

Is Socionics just going to show up, and disprove all of those theories? Unlikely. And since theories must stay consistent and can't contradict each other, is Socionics going to incorporate all the existing psychological and sociological theories, and modify the original theory so much that it becomes almost unrecognizable from the original inception? Again, unlikely.

What's most likely to happen is that Socionics is at best, going to be some "philosophy" that might be something interesting to talk about, but nothing more.

Needless to say, that this hope of making Socionics "scientific" is nothing but a pipe-dream of a few amateurs and crackpots. It's just not going to happen. You can't just show up and say, "Here's the data. We've proved it". All they would reply is, "Yes, and so what? You don't have a theory. Come back when you have one that could explain what that data even means. Also, don't contradict any of the already existing theories, unless you could significantly improve upon them".