Satire is not helpfull in a real scientific discussion, but it may be a provocation of some people who use common errors.

If we limit "intellectual discussion" to research articles published in peer-review high-quality journals, I would say that satire is an attempt to redefine the genre of the research article. Regardless of its intentions, challenging a well-established conventional genre may take time, and may only stand a chance if authors, readers, the community of practice and the gatekeepers see value in it.

It may be helpful to think of a satirical research article (serious journal, serious argument) in terms of the notion of small "c" creativity (Sawyer) and the propulsion theory of creative contributions (Sternberg) -- see http://www.robertjsternberg.com/investment-theory-of-creativity.

Using satire to make a serious point is something that's creative insofar as it may have some originality (this is purely a frequency statement -- you don't see satire a lot in a research journal) but whether it's also meaningful is questionable.

The Sokol affair (strictly speaking the article was a parody) shows that humour has not really caught on as an acceptable way for communicating research findings, with or without an element of social criticism or critical reflexivity; we're nearly 25 years on and similar cases are far and few between.

If there was a larger proportion of these articles across a wide range of disciplines and journals, it could be seen as a form of redefinition or reconceptualisation but that's not yet the case. This would mean that satirical research publications are in fact a form of regressive redirection, a return to some idea, something new that has, however, been discarded before.

As you point out, there are a lot of problems with satire and other forms of humour. When combined with the time it takes to write a satirical piece and getting it past the editor's desk and peer-reviewed, I would say the benefits are not worth the potential risks and harm.

In fact, what is beneficial -- and is a well accepted practice across time and space -- is to introduce sincere intellectual discussion into satire and other genres and forms of literature and art. This may point to a certain cognitive bias.

Satire is powerful tool. It should be different. It can't be part of a scientific or research activities.