Statistical significance testing, construct validity, and clinical versus actuarial judgment: an interesting (seeming) paradox

What practical implications does Meehl’s attack on significance testing have for clinical psychologists, and doesn’t Meehl contradict himself in placing so much emphasis on scientific theories in such works as “Theoretical Risks and Tabular Asterisks” and yet advocating for actuarial judgement, which is essentially an atheoretical approach to clinical predication? This seemingly paradoxical ideology, when considered within the broader context of Meehl’s work, can be readily aligned.