American Institute of Homeopathy, USA.
Bioethics. 2012 Nov;26(9):504-5; discussion 508-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01950.x. Epub 2012 Apr 17.
Kevin Smith's utilitarian argument against homeopathy(1) is flawed because he did not review and refute the relevant basic science literature on ultra-high dilutions. He also failed to appreciate that allopathic medicine is based on a deductive-nomothetic method and that homeopathic medicine is based on an inductive-idiographic method, and thus that the implications for clinical research are very different. His misunderstanding of provings and of the holism of homeopathic medicine also demonstrated his failure to understand the history, philosophy and method of homeopathy. Finally, I questioned the value of introducing ethical judgment into an ongoing scientific debate.
凯文·史密斯（Kevin Smith）反对顺势疗法的功利主义论点（1）是有缺陷的，因为他没有审查和反驳关于超高稀释度的相关基础科学文献。他也没有意识到，对抗疗法医学基于演绎-分类法，而顺势疗法基于归纳-个体论方法，因此，临床研究的含义非常不同。他对顺势疗法的证明和整体论的误解也表明他不了解顺势疗法的历史、哲学和方法。最后，我质疑将伦理判断引入正在进行的科学辩论的价值。
