I finished the book - and actually he addressed the science aspect of it in the last paragraph. His basic argument was that history is not considered a science, though it could be and should be - and he outlined a way to actually tackle it from that angle.
Really it's impossible to summarize 50,000 years of human history in a whatever page # book (Kindle doesn't have pages). So I can see why the broad strokes were used. At the end he listed other readings which go into more detail, so overall I think he did a good job. I'm also glad he's from my alma mater, it's alwasy good to get the school out there like that in a good light.



Reply With Quote



Bookmarks