Barnett B R
J R Coll Gen Pract. 1979 Sep;29(206):520-4, 528-9.
The current debate on the contribution of Michael Balint's work to general practice has been initiated by Sowerby's (1977) lengthy critique.Sowerby's arguments, however, depend on one particular definition of science, simplify some complex issues, and have rigid and restrictive qualities. I give some examples to illustrate this.Secondly, Sowerby's definition of the science of psychology leads to an intellectual separatism which Balint sought to reduce. The alternative diagnosis of ;depressive illness' is neither more helpful nor precise.Finally, criticisms of Balint seminars which Sowerby perceives as dangerous are challenged. I argue that Balint's approach in verifying and refuting hypotheses in the face of prospective observations and evidence was truly scientific.
当前关于迈克尔·巴林特的工作对全科医学贡献的争论是由索尔比（1977年）的长篇批评引发的。然而，索尔比的论点依赖于一种特定的科学定义，简化了一些复杂问题，且具有僵化和限制性的特点。我举一些例子来说明这一点。其次，索尔比对心理学科学的定义导致了一种巴林特试图减少的知识分离主义。“抑郁症”的替代诊断既没有更大帮助也不精确。最后，索尔比认为危险的对巴林特研讨会的批评受到了挑战。我认为巴林特在面对前瞻性观察和证据时验证和反驳假设的方法是真正科学的。
