31 ms·

This same vacuous argument could be applied to the book itself: Pop-sci books like this make a million claims and take an inordinate amount of time to verify. A

• marginalia_nu 4y ago
  It is quite different. To argue against a book, you really only need to argue against its central theme. To combat a dozen accusations, you need to reply to each and every one to avoid being wounded by them.
  • timr 4y ago
    > To argue against a book, you really only need to argue against its central theme. To combat a dozen accusations, you need to reply to each and every one to avoid being wounded by them. No, you don't get a pass just because your "central theme" is acceptable. If someone writes a book about a scientific topic, with a "central theme" that is uncontroversial but uninteresting (e.g. "sleep is good"), but otherwise riddles the book with factual and scientific inaccuracies, then they need to fix the problems. If they don't, they're writing science-themed fiction, at best. At worst, someone can do real harm by dressing up nonsense as science.
  • actinium226 4y ago
    It's like that quote from Einstein, when asked about what he thought about his many critics and detractors, he said something along the lines of "if I was wrong a single critic would be sufficient."