About the science part in his review.Fair enough I can see that but on the flip side I wonder if any science you could have offered would be well received. In books that touch on such details you'll see reviewers slam "preposterous pop science."
I kind of like vagueness or non explanations when done right. I'm not disagreeing with his review so much as wondering how to appease to masses with science.
Science is one of those careful tightropes. Too much and you'll bore 95% of your audience and piss of the 5% who actually know the field. Too little and you get written off as not explaining anything.
I think movies set great guidelines for stuff like that. How much "science" is actually explained in Iron Man
? Or The Matrix
? Or Back To The Future
? Or Prometheus
Okay, bad example with that last one...
is the flux capacitor. This is what makes time travel possible."
On an unrelated note, the LEGO version of Pavlov's Dogs