Agreed, it was hard to tell what side the author was on. If the Author did not agree with the convoluted nonsense being discusses, he was being so sarcastic for so long it was hard to tell. Kinda like listening to Matt Drudge
Actually, it was just that third paragraph that was sarcastic. The first two follow from Eagleman’s argument. There is certainly no defense of Eagleman here.
People do that?