{"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。
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".