I agree. I don't understand the praise the book has received. I found the reasoning in the book very sloppy, filled with huge gaps in the logic and more obvious alternate explanations for experimental results that were not even mentioned.

I don't expect the rigor of a research paper in a popular science book, but even popular science books have standards. I'm sure his papers fill in all the gaps in the book, but if there are multiple obvious explanations for an experimental result and you're going to tell your readers how to interpret the results, you should at least say why the other obvious (sometimes more obvious) interpretations are less plausible or why the preferred interpretation is so compelling -- even in a popular science book.

For some examples of what I mean, see this Amazon.com review.