My impressions of and take-aways from 
The Physicist and the Philosopher:  Einstein, Bergson, and the Debate That Changed Our Understanding of Time			
					by Jimena Canales
I.  I enjoyed the book.  I somehow was looking for a conclusion at the end, but it seemed to me that Jimena Canales was concentrating on history rather than the concept of time.   I didn't see a unified "Understanding of Time" that had been changed to expressed at the end of the book; instead my impression is of the book trying to give equal status to both views.  Yes, I am presumably biased.  But as a physicist thinking about this, the evidence to me clearly favors Einstein.
II.  My interpretation:  Crudely, Einstein's relativity can put a distant event in the 'past" or in the 'future' depending on the velocity of the observer, if the event is outside the light cone.  This leads to the "block-universe" view that the future must already exist, but your conciousness just hasn't gotten there yet.  This was anathema to Bergson's view of time as creation of the new.  So Bergson insisted that for the times of the two observers, one is real and the other is a pseudo-time.
III.  I don't have a strong opinion about the block universe, but for every interaction/event observed by physicists so far, relativity works, the twin "paradox" is settled in favor of Einstein, there is plenty of data that violates classical (non-relativistic) mechanics, and I can make no sense of "pseudo-time".  Since Bergson couldn't expand his philosophy to incorporate the fact that both t1 and t2 are real, I cannot give equal weight to their views.
IV.  It is said that this was the period that philosophy and science diverged.  My hypothesis is that it is because science was discovering relativity and quantum mechanics at that time, and we entered an era where what we know of the universe is extremely non-intuitive.  Is this partly the divide between scientific Empiricism (sense experience as source of knowledge) and Rationalism (reason as the source of knowledge)?  What is the state of Rationalism now?
V.  The book mentions objections to relativity like what about giants with eyes far enough apart to see both the near and far at the same time?  Also whether human time would be affected by relativity?  Or even biological time?  I believe we can be reasonably sure of these answers now, but Canales leaves them unaddressed, as well as the Cartesian dualism that presumably drives these questions.