> Asking scientists who specialize in Spearman's g whether g is real is like asking astrologers whether astrology works. Climate change deniers use the same ar

> Asking scientists who specialize in Spearman's g whether g is real is like asking astrologers whether astrology works. Climate change deniers use the same argument -- "Of course people who professionally study global warming will claim it's real!" Why is your claim valid while the above is specious? It depends on the rigor of the subfield in question.