Originally Posted by
MesaMan 
.
If this Science-based Addiction explanation isn't true, it doesn't matter to me. 'My' Construct involving Science and Genetics works for me. 100.dot.zero % of the time. I don't argue this Personal Reality any more than I argue Politics on-line. There's no Objectively-true Position to argue someone 'in to'. Gleefully walking away from such fights in Life - on any number of topics - has been yet another benefit of Sobriety.
No particular method of recovery is a life or death choice to me anymore. My recovery is in the past. Well mostly in the past, but I still tune it here and there as needed. All science does is give us the best explanations for what makes things happen. Science doesn't tell us what we should do with the information. Once we understand that information, we can use it to guide us down a path that will take us to our goals. But we still choose the goals and the paths. Science only gives us a solid platform to work from.
In the last short chapters of the book, the author does draw conclusions about what we need to do to recover in light of the information provided at the beginning. Here he makes logical deductions, good ones in my opinion, but they are still his conclusions, and at this point, there is room for discussion, and possibly even disagreement, it one feels that is necessary. But the first part of the book provides solid ground for us to do our own planning. It's hard to argue that, but it's in the implementation of recovery where there is room for people diverge.