TLDR: the researchers you admire are part of a school that disagrees with Dr. Hsu&#x27;s school.<p>Or at least, sort of disagree.  It&#x27;s not that they have any results showing a method for increasing either IQ or mathematical capacity.  They just don&#x27;t feel that it&#x27;s entirely, completely, totally and utterly proven that such a method (which the entire education industry has spent the last century searching for) <i>doesn&#x27;t</i> exist.  Well, sure.  Obviously, in an empirical science, negatives are pretty hard to prove.<p>But let that be.  Suppose your guys are totally right.  It used to be, in days gone by, when perhaps the spirit of science was better understood, that everyone interested in science understood that a hundred flowers bloomed, contending schools are a great and normal thing, and scholars can disagree -- without attacking each other personally as failed physicists, college administrators, etc.<p>Let alone elitists, racists, and Trotskyist wreckers.  Speaking of the spirit of science, and schools thereof, I wonder what your position on Professors Boas, Gould and Mead might be?  Do you regard them as conclusively guilty of scientific fraud?  Or do you feel that in some way the jury remains out?  What do you feel Professor Turkheimer&#x27;s views on the question might be?