Is there a real difference between science in the modern sense - meaning that which arises as absolute - and the scientific discourse in the later teachings of Jacques Lacan? He had once tried to adjust analytic discourse to the anti-discourse that is science. With this in mind, he sought to draw analytic discourse away from conventional approaches. By manipulating specific semblances, psychoanalysis and science give access to the real. But we are now in the DSM-V era. The question behind this debate is the relationship between diagnosis and science in the absolute sense. What knowledge is this classification based on? That derived from psychoanalytic theory, based on the subject's relation to the reality of castration? Or that of current organicist pcsychiatry, neuroscience and cognitive-behavioral therapy?
Science; psychoanalysis; speech; ideology; social bond