whether Graeber and Wengrow commit so many howlers that their central thesis is invalidated.
Is it good storytelling, is it fact, or something in between?
Interesting to see where the bar is in the anthropology community in terms of bringing evidence to tell a new story.
Where does this line exist between fact and fiction and what does it tell us about the level and rigor of a science? Mathematics and physics can't get away with stringing together falsities, yet the "softer" sciences apparently can.
Even if Graeber and Wengrow's story isn't fact, shouldn't it be? For the benefit of humanity?