Most popular books read definitively. Frameworks developed and justified are presented as infallible.
Yet there’s also the general truth that you can’t believe most of what you read.
I think we can recognize what has enduring value and what doesn’t based on the types of counter-arguments we can levy against an author’s arguments.
There needs to be a space where an author can list out (in Twitter-styled brevity) aspects of his thesis that may not be 100% valid. A form of literary version control. So that we don’t delude ourselves into thinking that good writing and good argument are the same thing.
ammar mian 