Thanks for the reply. My friendly response to the suggestion that I should consider mostly what subject a person has earned a Ph.D. in as the basis for whom to believe on what subject is that sometimes good ideas for one subject come from people who learned another subject. Sometimes that's the best way to make progress in a subject that has become stuck in outmoded theories. I observe that Ph.D. psychologists
1) were taken by surprise by Flynn's research on IQ test score trends over time, having initially predicted precisely the opposite trend,
2) proposed very stringent standards for acceptable data before believing the trend was real (and Flynn credits Jensen, who has just the sort of credentials you have recommended, as being especially tough in demanding certain kinds of evidence),
3) reviewed his publications before allowing them to appear in the leading journals in the field of psychology,
4) invited Flynn to attend major conferences written up in specialized monographs with acknowledged experts in psychology,
Anyway, scientific issues aren't decided by credentials, but by data. Flynn found and analyzed some very important data that caused a lot of psychologists to reexamine their assumptions. John Raven takes care to write, "The results surprise many psychologists. Eductive ability has turned out to be more easily influenced by appropriate educational and developmental experience than reproductive ability." In other words, what Jensen and others took as a "culture fair," "g-loaded" IQ test turns out to reflect modifiable educational experiences that children have or do not have.
1) were taken by surprise by Flynn's research on IQ test score trends over time, having initially predicted precisely the opposite trend,
2) proposed very stringent standards for acceptable data before believing the trend was real (and Flynn credits Jensen, who has just the sort of credentials you have recommended, as being especially tough in demanding certain kinds of evidence),
3) reviewed his publications before allowing them to appear in the leading journals in the field of psychology,
4) invited Flynn to attend major conferences written up in specialized monographs with acknowledged experts in psychology,
http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Intelligence-No-233-Novartis-Fo...
5) praised his work in standard textbooks on human intelligence,
6) devoted whole monographs specifically to his findings,
http://books.apa.org/books.cfm?id=431712A
and generally accorded Flynn greater honor as a researcher on psychological phenomena than most psychologists gain in a lifetime.
http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=978...
Anyway, scientific issues aren't decided by credentials, but by data. Flynn found and analyzed some very important data that caused a lot of psychologists to reexamine their assumptions. John Raven takes care to write, "The results surprise many psychologists. Eductive ability has turned out to be more easily influenced by appropriate educational and developmental experience than reproductive ability." In other words, what Jensen and others took as a "culture fair," "g-loaded" IQ test turns out to reflect modifiable educational experiences that children have or do not have.