You're wrong. Again, the book deals with this point directly.

- "Their talk" of science is not merely inaccurate, it is _disingenuous_ - This disingenuousness raises questions about the authors' sincerity (which the authors of Intellectual Impostures are at pains to limit to the scientific areas, but could well be extended) - They do not "dismiss the work" of the authors - They are at pains to try and work out what the authors might have meant (including unpicking "bad analogies" or "inappropriate asides".

Once again I'm required to ask for evidence of this from someone likely not to have actually read the book closely.