在本刊七月号刊登何爱华先生的“对’诊法的起始及其演变’之商榷”一文,我读了以后,感到没有答复的必要;因为他所“商榷”的地方,除了有意或无意的颠倒是非和窜改我的文意以外,都可在我那篇“诊法的起始及其演变”中找到答案.但是何先生既然指名要我答复(他说“希望范先生……批评指教”),而且我这篇文章是发表于去年4-8月份本刊,现在许多读者未必都能看到,如单看片面之词,不免为何先生之说所欺蒙,遂不能不答复了.至本刊编者对此问题说“必须通过百家争鸣的过程,才能愈争愈清楚”的话,原则上我是同意 In his July issue of the publication of Mr. He Aihua’s article, “A Discussion on the Beginning and Evolution of the Consultation Law,” I did not find it necessary to reply after I read it; for where he was “deliberately” Apart from the intentional or unintentional reversal of the right and wrong and the tampering of my essay, you can find the answer in my “The Beginning and Evolution of the Clinical Practice.” However, since Mr. Ho called me for a reply (he said “ I hope Fan ... criticism ”), and my article is published in April-August last year, now many readers may not be able to see, such as single-looking one-sided words, can not help but why Mr. said to be deceived , Then can not fail to reply to the editor to this issue that “in the process of contention through a hundred schools of thought, in order to be more clear ”, in principle I agree