My reply is the only one which links to a publication which attempts to directly answer OP's question and includes both praise and criticism of said publication

My reply is the only one which links to a publication which attempts to directly answer OP's question and includes both praise and criticism of said publication. I think therefore that anyone can judge for themselves whether said publication is "anti-science" or "anti-fact" and your help is not required. I feel perfectly comfortable allowing people to think for themselves, especially since this publication is not obviously bollocks: it was awarded both the Economist and Times book of the year prizes. Finally, based on what I've seen from the scientific community around politicised topics like this one, any link (especially from US-affiliated organisations) should be by default open to questioning and not unassailable proof. Although given that it's psychology it should probably just be outright ignored for a couple of decades until they manage to form a coherent opinion.