The authors description of pschychogists and their research into learning desmonstrates only a basic psychology textbook understanding of learning and learning research. Much of his discussion on child development boils down to "it's invalid because you can't just stuff kids into cans that way." That is to say, he has no actual idea on the research that has actually occurred in this area. He has no idea that most of this has little or nothing to do with school style learning. This is from a person who claims to have studied psychology and this area of psychology.
In fact, what his is doing is attacking psychology in general, which demonstrates to me that the research itself is not very easy to attack. This puts up a big beware sign. I find it amazing how shallow his argument become the moment he talks about a subject in which I am informed.
I could tear this work down further, and certainly freshen up my rhetoric, but I don't feel like doing that. However, I will continue reading this work with a deeper skeptical eye.