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?