> There is no reason to discredit his claims as "false" I'm just pointing out that he made false claims. I'm not concerned with whether it was intentional - ma

> There is no reason to discredit his claims as "false" I'm just pointing out that he made false claims. I'm not concerned with whether it was intentional - many of the claims he made in the book was false. Some of the premises he attempts to support were supported with conflicting information. I simply wouldn't trust anything he's written in that book unless he republishes it with the corrected information, and retracts the mistakes. Has he done so? The fact that he allows the book to continue to be publish and circulated is enough for me. Also, he's been found citing his own books in his research papers - nothing shockingly wrong with that, but poor practice as far as research goes.