I noticed that when I was reading and kind of went "huh?". It's simultaneously a strange error and one which would be easy to avoid, so I can see why you say he

I noticed that when I was reading and kind of went "huh?". It's simultaneously a strange error and one which would be easy to avoid, so I can see why you say he lies. It also worries me that if the pattern were to repeat on other parts of the book that I don't have any knowledge about, I wouldn't recognize them off hand. It's far from ideal. On the other hand, I think the book is full of good analysis, the overall narrative is compelling. I don't think it really warrants treatment as a textbook, more as any other mass market non-fiction...subject to factual scrutiny, but worthy of intellectual engagement as well. he cites enough true things and gives enough examples that the point would stand alone if the factual errors named were simply removed. Now, I don't condone lying, and I certainly am not pleased to see that post you linked. I am also sufficiently interested with the philosophical content of the book that I still recommend it, though with a slightly tempered sense of enthusiasm...sigh.