Pinet P
Rev Hist Pharm (Paris). 1998;45(317):67-80.
Hahnemann and homeopaths have always hold that the origine of homeopathy was essentially experimental. The Hippocrate's method of observation, the experience with quinquina carried out by Hahnemann in 1790, and furthermore a similar experimental thought than the C. Bernard's one, are constantly put forward. The alchemist origins of homeopathy, in particular Paracelse, that old authors had found, have been scathingly denied. It stands yet to reason that the rôle of the paracelsian philosophy, through the german philosophy at the Hahnemann's time and the medical vitalism at its acme at that time, was crucial. Nevertheless, the direct part of contemporary physicians, specially english ones, as Nugent, J. Hunter and Cullen has been disregarded. Hahnemann, proudly, said nothing about his most important springs. The history of his ideas, the theorical and conceptual problems involved by the principle of similitude and not only the infinitesimality, show that homeopathy arises, not so much from experience as from theoretical ideas, and mind of system so current before C. Bernard. It can be easily showed that C. Bernard's epistemology, which is prevailing in biology today, is a logical obstacle to homeopathy.
哈内曼和顺势疗法从业者一直认为顺势疗法的起源本质上是实验性的。希波克拉底的观察方法、哈内曼在1790年进行的金鸡纳实验，以及与克洛德·贝尔纳类似的实验思想，都经常被提及。旧时代的作者们发现的顺势疗法的炼金术起源，尤其是帕拉塞尔苏斯的，遭到了严厉否认。然而，帕拉塞尔苏斯哲学通过哈内曼时代的德国哲学以及当时处于鼎盛时期的医学活力论所发挥的作用至关重要。尽管如此，当代医生，特别是像纽金特、J. 亨特和卡伦这样的英国医生的直接贡献却被忽视了。哈内曼自豪地对他最重要的灵感来源只字未提。他的思想发展史、相似性原则所涉及的理论和概念问题，以及不仅仅是极小剂量问题，表明顺势疗法与其说是源于经验，不如说是源于理论观念，以及在克洛德·贝尔纳之前就很流行的系统思维。很容易证明，如今在生物学中占主导地位的克洛德·贝尔纳的认识论是顺势疗法的一个逻辑障碍。
