Is this critic's point that there can be nothing of value in Dr. DiAngelo's book because her theory isn't "falsifiable"? As I see it, being falsifiable is not a prerequisite for intellectual output to have value. For that matter, I would be hard pressed to think of a philosophical position that is falsifiable. It is all yet more food for thought.

The one exception would be (my own, as it happens) 'real justice', an account of justice that follows from observation within material existence. ("Real Justice: Goodness without Limit" here in Medium, if any reader might be curious.) In it, if the observation is not valid the ethic that follows from it is invalid--but the obverse it also true.