I received a PM asking me to respond.

F's theories were brill then, but that was before neurophys and biochem. We know bio better now. Shouldn't keep using F's theories without taking new bio stuff into account.

infer

The author does say F's theories were good (better than good: brilliant!) once upon a time but now we have new, bio-based info that F didn't have. Author doesn't say F's theories are therefore bad now. Simply says that we can't keep going by exactly what F said - we have to take the new, bio-based stuff into account here and see.

(A) is too extreme. The author does not say "it would be foolish to continue parroting F's theories period - he's totally wrong." Instead, the author says "it would be foolish to continue parroting F's theories without taking into account the new information." Perhaps F's theories will mesh with the new info. Perhaps not. We really don't know what the author thinks about that because s/he doesn't say.

(B) is too broad, as others have pointed out. Also, B says that bio should be more important than psych. The author doesn't say anything to justify downgrading psych - the author merely advocates for paying attention to bio as well. The author may also want to downgrade psych - but s/he hasn't said so in this paragraph.

(D) pretty much says what I said above - don't just parrot F's theories without taking into account the new stuff. That implies that the author wants to look at F's theories in the context of the new stuff - which is what D says.