What does this even mean really? That they did a bunch of research and instead of writing numerous papers wrong a single book? Does it give a detailed explanation of each experiment enough so that they can be repeated? Or is it like those pop-sci books that take a few specifically picked studies, a lot of anecdotes, and a few 'expert' interviews and try to get the average reader convinced on a point (which may or may not be correct)?
I gotta say my enthusiasm is significantly dulled.
I prefer scientific articles, because they tend to be peer-reviewed, and have a testable null hypothesis.
Its also why I avoid books like outliers by malcolm gladwell.
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll probably check it out eventually.
However as I'm usually short on time, I'd prefer to just read the scientific articles for myself.
Do you have any notable scientific articles from the book references to recommend ?