I have read it, though I can't find where he calls for scientific debate (or any kind of debate) rather than reeling off a list of points with more Wikipedia li

I have read it, though I can't find where he calls for scientific debate (or any kind of debate) rather than reeling off a list of points with more Wikipedia links and popsci articles than someone with research skills should know not to put in. I just realised how comical the little table of "left biases" and "right biases" is, even if he does try to hedge out the unfounded categorisations with "it's not 100% accurate".