Plant “intelligence” and the misuse of historical sources as evidence

IF 2.5 3区 生物学 Q3 CELL BIOLOGY
Sharon E. Kingsland, Lincoln Taiz
{"title":"Plant “intelligence” and the misuse of historical sources as evidence","authors":"Sharon E. Kingsland, Lincoln Taiz","doi":"10.1007/s00709-024-01988-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Proponents of the concepts of plant intelligence and plant neurobiology often use historical sources as “evidence” and argue that eminent past scientists have supported ideas of plant intelligence, memory, learning, decision-making, agency, and consciousness. Historical sources include writings by Charles Darwin, Julius von Sachs, F. W. Went, K. V. Thimann, Barbara McClintock, and J. B. Lamarck. Advocates of plant neurobiology also argue that the ideas of J. C. Bose, an Indian scientist who is considered an important forerunner of plant neurobiology, were suppressed chiefly because of racism. Plant neurobiology has been criticized on scientific grounds, but there has not been close scrutiny of the use of historical sources as a form of evidence. We provide the first in-depth analysis of how historical sources have been used and misused, and conclude that there is a consistent pattern of distortion of these sources. Distortions include the use of erroneous quotations, alteration of quotations, selective quotations without context, and misinterpretation and exaggeration of historical statements. In the case of Bose, we show that there were legitimate scientific reasons for questioning his interpretations of botanical experiments and argue that this context cannot be ignored in evaluating contemporary responses to Bose. Overall, the common practice by proponents of plant intelligence and plant consciousness of uncritically citing the words of eminent scientists of the past, taken out of their historical context to bolster their arguments, should not be confused with scientific evidence supporting these concepts, even when the quotations, themselves, are accurate.</p>","PeriodicalId":20731,"journal":{"name":"Protoplasma","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Protoplasma","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00709-024-01988-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CELL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Proponents of the concepts of plant intelligence and plant neurobiology often use historical sources as “evidence” and argue that eminent past scientists have supported ideas of plant intelligence, memory, learning, decision-making, agency, and consciousness. Historical sources include writings by Charles Darwin, Julius von Sachs, F. W. Went, K. V. Thimann, Barbara McClintock, and J. B. Lamarck. Advocates of plant neurobiology also argue that the ideas of J. C. Bose, an Indian scientist who is considered an important forerunner of plant neurobiology, were suppressed chiefly because of racism. Plant neurobiology has been criticized on scientific grounds, but there has not been close scrutiny of the use of historical sources as a form of evidence. We provide the first in-depth analysis of how historical sources have been used and misused, and conclude that there is a consistent pattern of distortion of these sources. Distortions include the use of erroneous quotations, alteration of quotations, selective quotations without context, and misinterpretation and exaggeration of historical statements. In the case of Bose, we show that there were legitimate scientific reasons for questioning his interpretations of botanical experiments and argue that this context cannot be ignored in evaluating contemporary responses to Bose. Overall, the common practice by proponents of plant intelligence and plant consciousness of uncritically citing the words of eminent scientists of the past, taken out of their historical context to bolster their arguments, should not be confused with scientific evidence supporting these concepts, even when the quotations, themselves, are accurate.

植物 "情报 "和滥用历史资料作为证据
植物智能和植物神经生物学概念的支持者经常使用历史资料作为 "证据",并认为过去的著名科学家支持植物智能、记忆、学习、决策、代理和意识等观点。历史资料包括查尔斯-达尔文、朱利叶斯-冯-萨克斯、F. W. 温特、K. V. 蒂曼、芭芭拉-麦克林托克和 J. B. 拉马克的著作。植物神经生物学的支持者还认为,印度科学家 J. C. Bose 的思想被认为是植物神经生物学的重要先驱,但他的思想被压制主要是因为种族主义。植物神经生物学一直受到科学方面的批评,但对历史资料作为证据形式的使用却没有进行仔细的审查。我们首次深入分析了历史资料是如何被使用和滥用的,并得出结论,这些资料被歪曲的模式是一致的。歪曲包括使用错误的引文、篡改引文、有选择性地引用没有上下文的引文以及曲解和夸大历史陈述。就博斯而言,我们表明质疑他对植物学实验的解释有合理的科学理由,并认为在评估当代对博斯的反应时不能忽视这一背景。总之,植物智能和植物意识的支持者通常会不加批判地引用过去著名科学家的言论来支持他们的论点,这种脱离历史背景的做法不应与支持这些概念的科学证据相混淆,即使这些引文本身是准确的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Protoplasma
Protoplasma 生物-细胞生物学
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
6.90%
发文量
99
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Protoplasma publishes original papers, short communications and review articles which are of interest to cell biology in all its scientific and applied aspects. We seek contributions dealing with plants and animals but also prokaryotes, protists and fungi, from the following fields: cell biology of both single and multicellular organisms molecular cytology the cell cycle membrane biology including biogenesis, dynamics, energetics and electrophysiology inter- and intracellular transport the cytoskeleton organelles experimental and quantitative ultrastructure cyto- and histochemistry Further, conceptual contributions such as new models or discoveries at the cutting edge of cell biology research will be published under the headings "New Ideas in Cell Biology".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信