The book argues that there is no free will based on tons of scientific data - how our genes, society, historical ancestors, natal conditions etc. completely (Sapolsky's repeated assertion) determine who we are, 'leaving absolutely no room for free will'.

A favorite example (he uses this in every podcast first) is where judges give lighter sentences after lunch, compared to before lunch when they're hungry.

In general talk of political implications (say) of such studies, the sides point to many problems with the methodology. I don't know enough about philosophy of science (if that is even the domain) to think properly about this from a higher level.

Can scientific and sociological data even yield such conclusions?

What are the main problems with the methodology in 'Determined'? Thanks!