利物浦遊記

早上10時左右到達利物浦John Lennon機場，在機場的ATM取英鎊不需手續費，兌換率也很合理，機場人員還很友善指點巴士站的位置，並對我說5－10分鐘便會有巴士，等了好一陣子，其他乘客都上車了，我還在等。其實我沒有介意，就這樣感受一下英倫的味道也是很自在的。當我等的那一路巴士接近時，那個叔叔還特地過來跟我說今天這路巴士比平時來得遲，讓我久候了。殷勤的態度 讓人感到很溫暖。雖然是初次踏足這片土地，卻有似曾相識的感覺。在候車時，我問身後的兩位英國帥哥車費多少，我本來是打算向他們找零錢，沒想到其中一位帥哥毫不猶疑地掏出£1.6，接著一聲“Welcome to England!" 上車後我才知道原來在英國是可以跟司機找續的（香港和美國都不容許）。也就是說，那兩位英國帥哥早知道我是可以用紙幣的，他們根本沒有必要特地掏£1.6給我。微薄的禮讓洋溢著一份對外國人的友善和好客，和我在荷蘭的經歷大相徑庭。

Liverpool是一個寧靜的小城。從機場到青年旅館的路上都是一幢幢樓高兩三層的房子，車子整齊地在兩邊平排並列。我下榻的Nightingale旅館離市中心很近，放下行李後往市中心購物曲出發，途經China Town，但是在正午12點鐘，China Town所有的店鋪大門都緊緊關上，怎麼回事？路人說這裡的店晚上一般營業至凌晨，所以開店時間也相對較晚。繼續徒步上路，意外發現一家小書店，在書店的 “bargain” 角落如穫珍寶，很多經典的讀物只售£1。Marx's Captial, Nietzsche‘s Beyond Good and Evil, The Symposium, Bertrand Russel's What I believe！心存感激。老闆娘也很友善，明天一定會再拜訪，記下書店名字。再往前走是市中心的大型購物區，很多店鋪打折至少50％。由於我的傷風還未完全痊愈，加入北歐的天氣會更清涼，我打算買一件較厚的外套甚麼的，本以為買不著了，卻幸運地在H&M找到一件特價的風衣，£15，款式也很好，就算在香港也絕對不祇這個價。太陽眼鏡只售£2.59！後來我買了一份小禮物給Maj，在Marks & Spencer買兩件衣服給家人，滿載而歸！

今晚就不出去了，先做些research，計劃一下明天的行程。又或是看剛剛的戰利品，又或翻閱書籍，又或準備ppt，又或寫報告。

Sokal and alternative therapies

cross-posted at http://alternative.asu.edu/

The infamous physicist Alan Sokal, who gained a “reputation” in SSK and STS by his critical parody “Transgressing the boundaries: the Hermeneutics of Quantum Physics” published in Social Text in 1996, recently launched another round of assault to what he called “pseudo-medicine” in his public lecture “What is science and why should we care?” given on February 27 2008 in London (podcast available from the Guardian)

His talk commenced with his discontent and fury with the school of “social construction of science/ scientific knowledge/ scientific facts” by quoting excepts from notable scholars in SSK and STS such as HM Collins, B. Latour, B. Barnes, D. Bloor, K. Hayles and demonstrate how their writings on “social construction of science” constitute a hazardous move toward intellectual relativism and vanity. Then he traversed to what he conceptualized as a “second set of adversaries of the scientific worldview”, namely the advocates of pseudo-medicine. By “pseudo”, he meant the sloppy and unscientific mechanism by which alternative therapies such as homeopathy can function within the existing knowledge system in science.
According to Sokal, the utter scientific implausibility of homeopathy lies at its “unproven (or disproven) mechanism by which homeopathy could possibly work, unless one rejects everything that we have learned over the last 200 years about physics and chemistry….” and that “existence of such a phenomenon would contradict well-tested science, in this case the statistical mechanics of fluids”.

In short, Sokal is angry about the sum of money spent on promoting homeopathy because he saw homeopathy as antagonistic to “credible” methodology in Western science. Since western science is the canonical archetype among the existing knowledge systems, everything against it is relegated as “bad science”.

What is the other side of the story? According to some defenders of homeopathy, the preference for homeopathy stems partly from the recognition of impossibility of separating such an ever-changing body from its environment–health is affected by diet, water, air, mood, stress, relationships, the past, colors, work, and so on. Often, people turn to alternative medicine to address these concerns. Emily Martin elaborated on the interconnection between (internal) immune system and (external) environment:

“Inside the citadel of science, there is a group of scientists who are focusing on the links between the immune system and the world outside the body. much as alternative medicine treats the body in its life environment. They are claiming that the immune system is a self-organizing network, a complex system of the sort Vera Michaels evoked, But today these scientists are considered ‘unconventional’ and their views controversial….” (Anthropology and the Cultural Study of Science: From Citadels to String Figures 1997: 139)

Alright, enough of the acrimonious dispute. Now is there any way to reconcile the dichotomous views? If we believed in Sokal’s criticism on the deconstructive (and thus destructive) signpost the school of “social construction of science” is taking us to, how can we be more constructive? Apparently some people believe in homeopathy and some people don’t. But is it simply a matter of faith? What is at stake here? Power asymmetry? Credibility & authority? Misconception? Disciplinary and institutional barriers?

Are sarcasm and parody and mutual hatred the best way to handle the dispute?