I always read user comments before buying a book, in addition to buying and reading or re-reading at least 50 books a year, weighted to about 75% non-fiction.
This book is a good example of the transparent phoniness of most "reader-reviewers," not all, of course, but enough to take notice.
In the case of this book, what gives them away as "paid" or fake reviewers is simple : the universal and repeated enthusiastic support of absurd "facts" such as "consensus science" and the "social sciences."
Such stupidities are indisputable marks of the science-ignorant.
People like to pretend that science can stand alone, without some moral impetus behind it.
People are ignorant. What suggests canons of reasonableness or logic to scientists in the first place? The talk about suppressing all presuppositions is balderdash; what is being done is suppressing a set of presuppositions that are presupposed to be harmful.
“I thought I should buy a copy of this book, and read it before commenting, but I have discovered a remarkably reliable (and free) alternative technique.”
To what book are you referring?