So I actually opened Keen's book - and it's more damning than I remembered. He quotes evidence that two major proponents of EMH - Sharpe and Fama - have made ve

So I actually opened Keen's book - and it's more damning than I remembered. He quotes evidence that two major proponents of EMH - Sharpe and Fama - have made very critical comments as to its (EMH) empirical validity. Isn't it also ironic that you criticize the book as being pop-sci by perusing Wikipedia? You know, in both cases, being pop-sci doesn't imply being wrong.