←back to thread

Criticisms of “The Body Keeps the Score”

(josepheverettwil.substack.com)
249 points adityaathalye | 2 comments | 22 Oct 25 18:49 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
the_sleaze_ ◴[22 Oct 25 19:29 UTC] No.45673996[source]▶
> Book falls apart

My claim: there is no psychiatric body of work that is impervious to criticism. Not a single piece of psychological science is 100% true.

Drugs work but often don't. Therapies work but often don't. Alice's research falls apart under Bob's scrutiny.

It's a soft science, it is what it is.

replies(11): >>45674089 #>>45674141 #>>45674168 #>>45674191 #>>45674199 #>>45674245 #>>45674330 #>>45674337 #>>45674381 #>>45674418 #>>45675735 #
blobbers ◴[22 Oct 25 19:40 UTC] No.45674141[source]▶
Usually if you have to add 'science' to a term its not science.
replies(2): >>45674188 #>>45678645 #
1. jdiff ◴[22 Oct 25 19:44 UTC] No.45674188[source]▶
We do that incredibly often just to refer to only one part of an incredibly broad concept of "science." Sometimes they get unique terms like "physics" or "chemistry," but not always. This is not a rule that can accurately be applied to all terms matching the pattern "____ science."
replies(1): >>45674458 #
2. ternaryoperator ◴[22 Oct 25 20:06 UTC] No.45674458[source]▶
Wait…so you’re saying computer science isn’t science? /s