Taking that assurance at face value was naïve. The taxi thing was a motif. He frames the interview with it, telling the taxi that picked him up at the end that a famous philosopher lived there.

> 13415 isn't saying the author succeeds at making Popper look silly. Rather, the author is attempting and failing to do so.

How would you define failure in this scenario?

> Taking that assurance at face value was naïve. The taxi thing was a motif.

You sure do like the word naive!

Do you think he lied about being instructed by the staff member that the taxi driver would know where the guy lived? If not, then you're arguing that the author, having been instructed by the staff that he would not need directions, should have summoned his worldly wisdom and realized this couldn't be true. But the mere bias of someone's staff, which is of course predictable, does not explain why that staff would exaggerate in a way that will predictably be refuted, i.e., when the author gets into the cab, he'll find out they don't know! So you're arguing that he's naive for not assuming that the staff is both biased and stupid. But cab drivers knowing where a local minor celebrity lives is not that crazy of a proposition.

> How would you define failure in this scenario?

Rather than reporting unambiguous (i.e., un-manipulatable) facts that are clear evidence of silliness, he mostly uses rhetorical techniques which are completely up to the author's discretion. When he does report facts, they are completely consistent with Popper being a retired intellectual giant who is just old, forgetful, and busy. Trying to make Popper look bad because he's a forgetful 90-year-old comes off as very distasteful.