This book review doesn't seem to agree with the book itself anywhere. It feels very polarised, for or against, isn't that the basis of flame wars?
I think critique is usually more healthy than agreement.
Disagreement is the fire in which the sword of knowledge is forged.
Ah yes, the scientific debate. Honestly I thought it would occur elsewhere, such as in papers being published, with a book review being a watered down version for the more lay person, with less polarisation due to the aggregation of sources.
There do need to be intermediate products between (all to partisan albeit accurate) popular level writings and then real papers.
I`ve found technicalish podcasts to be a good approximation thereof but audio generally has lower information density than text.