zlacker

>>lcaff+(OP)
While this is fascinating and I'm glad to have read it, it doesn't substantiate that this experiment set back psychiatry. The fact that the DSM-IV was prompted or encouraged by the experiment is suggested, but there's no argument for it. Even beyond that, the article doesn't even hint at an argument that the DSM-IV set back psychiatry (except offering the bare assertion that reductionism is false).

Of course, the DSM is very controversial, and many people could fill in the argument, but this article doesn't do it.

>>hyperp+I3
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a review of a book that purports to make the case you're stating is not made here. That seems like a high bar for a review to me. Unless, do you mean you've read the book and the book fails to substantiate this claim?