Abstract
This paper examines some aspects of the attempted construction of the `ghostly imprint' phenomenon which resulted in a five-month controversy, pitting immunologists against homeopathists. A striking feature of this case appeared to be its farcical atmosphere - an atmosphere reminiscent of Kafka's satirical comedy, The Trial. First, I show that such a farcical atmosphere marked the initial phase of the `ghostly imprint' episode, caused by (and generating) an underlying ambiguity in the issues, roles, types of discourse and interests in the play of events. Second, I focus on how the scientific community accomplished error counting. / examine the means by which Ben veniste's results were deemed to be `unscientific'. Crucial to my analysis of the patterns of power inscribed in the relationship of humour and rhetoric operating within the scientific community in this particular case, are the theoretical frameworks of Emerson, Collins & Pinch, and Gilbert & Mulkay.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.