There are some blog posts by experts in the various fields that I read. An AI can find them if you ask (I don't remember specifics). TLDR; the facts aren't necessarily wrong (with some exceptions IIRC), but the author presents things with extreme confidence when the scientific consensus is much less certain. And then builds a confident narrative on top of it.
Comments
Sapiens is super loose about interpreting facts carefully, particularly the prehistory part.
Agreed. The whole premise of language being created to gossip has zero scientific merit.
I'm currently reading that book, and I find this sentiment interesting (not knowing any better myself) - is there a critique/fact-check somewhere?
There are some blog posts by experts in the various fields that I read. An AI can find them if you ask (I don't remember specifics). TLDR; the facts aren't necessarily wrong (with some exceptions IIRC), but the author presents things with extreme confidence when the scientific consensus is much less certain. And then builds a confident narrative on top of it.