Did Dr. Bo Bennett Make This Common Fallacy When Advertising His Book?

So, when describing his book 'Logically Fallacious', Bo Bennett says the following: "This book is a crash course, meant to catapult you into a world where you start to see things how they really are, not how you think they are." Well isn't this a distinction without a difference fallacy? Given that the only way to interpret things is through how you THINK they are, there can be no way of seeing things without the hypothetical middlemen of your perception and thoughts of those things. In Logically Fallacious, Bo gives the following example and explanation for the distinction without a difference fallacy:
"Example #2:
We must judge this issue by what the Bible says, not by what we think it says or by what some scholar or theologian thinks it says.
Explanation: Before you say, “Amen!”, realize that this is a clear case of distinction without a difference. There is absolutely no difference here because the only possible way to read the Bible is through interpretation, in other words, what we think it says. What is being implied here is that one's own interpretation (what he or she thinks the Bible says) is what it really says, and everyone else who has a different interpretation is not really reading the Bible for what it says."

Okay, so I am wondering if this example is similar to Bo's statement above in terms of committing the fallacy? I look forward to your answers, especially if Dr. Bennett can answer that himself.

So, when describing his book 'Logically Fallacious', Bo Bennett says the following: "This book is a crash course, meant to catapult you into a world where you start to see things how they really are, not how you think they are." Well isn't this a distinction without a difference fallacy?

No, it’s not.

Science, logic, and philosophy have shown we are prone to perceive the world the way we are rather than the way it is.

When you talk about Bo's description "see things how they really are, not how you think they are." that is using the definition of think as belief.

You then say " the only way to interpret things is through how you THINK they are" which is a different definition meaning the act of thinking.

I believe you're committing an equivocation fallacy by mixing different definitions.

No fallacy. The Bible is referring to book where the meaning of the original authors is lost, and only available through interpretation. The "things" to which I was referring is verifiable information often distorted by cognitive bias and fallacies. Consider the following deductive fallacy:

If taxes are lowered, I will have more money to spend.
I have more money to spend.
Therefore, taxes must have been lowered.

Without knowledge of affirming the consequent, one can have a picture of reality where taxes must have been lowered. With the understand of this fallacy, one has the correct picture of reality - taxes do not necessary have to be lowered. This isn't a matter of opinion or subjective interpretation; it is a fact deduced.

Besides, marketing material is full of hyperbole and sales speak—it's not meant to be a logical argument.