Geochemistry is the most popular discipline in various fields of earth science today, especially with the most published-SCI papers. One of the reasons behind this situation is that geochemical research has excellent instruments and equipments, which can produce good data, and based on such data, gechemists publish articles with long tables and beautiful figures. Consequently, the level of geochemical research has also risen, leading to many other disciplines approaching geochemistry. This seems to be a good thing, but meanwhile it has also nurtured a crisis in geochemistry. The crisis mainly appears as losing the foundation, the premise and the thought, going beyond the scope, simplifying and abusing geochemical data. Blindly expanding the scope of geochemical research and attempting to replace research from other disciplines is inevitably not feasible. Comparing different substances, fixing thinking, and making research rigid will inevitably produce results that cannot withstand practical testing. The article criticizes the tendency in geochemical research to prioritize data over the field and to overlook geological foundations. The article points out that the mindset of bundling geochemical markers with their explanations is not suitable. The results obtained from local research cannot lead to conclusions with global significance. Regarding the study of the Archean and the origin of plate tectonics, using geochemical data alone is not enough, and solid evidence from field geological studies of the Archean must be combined. Replacing structural research with geochemical research is problematic, and this trend cannot be encouraged. Finally, it is pointed out that there is a crisis in geochemical research, which itself nurtures opportunities and leads to development. Geochemistry should return to the right track, introduce big data research, strengthen mathematical, physical and chemical foundations, promote geochemical research into a new paradigm, and drive the leapfrog development of geoscience.