[yellowapple]

But all four are (in my opinion, whatever that may be worth) qualified to comment on psychological claims, which is more what the paper was about.

This doesn't change the fact that psychology is a very fuzzy science with lots of room for ambiguity and subjectivity. The human brain is among the most complex computing devices known to humans, and it's one which humans had no real part in designing; psychology basically amounts to reverse-engineering a convoluted and obfuscated closed-source program running on an entirely-undocumented computing platform. Oh, and the software - and even hardware - in question is constantly rewriting itself as part of the way it processes inputs.

Our understanding of psychology is changing constantly as a result; information from even as little as a decade ago is fraught with inaccuracies revealed since, and information from today will almost certainly be invalidated - whether in part or entirely - within the next decade.

Put simply: just because these authorities have validated the paper in question does not make that validation - or the paper - actually correct.