Calvo Paco, Raja Vicente, Segundo-Ortin Miguel
Minimal Intelligence Laboratory (MINT Lab), University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
Protoplasma. 2025 Mar;262(2):247-254. doi: 10.1007/s00709-024-01993-4. Epub 2024 Sep 28.
In their recent paper, Kingsland and Taiz argue that proponents of plant intelligence and plant neurobiology misuse historical sources to support their claims, suggesting a pattern of bias. They critique the reliance on subjective judgments and the systematic misuse of past literature by notable scientists. This response addresses their criticisms while adhering to Rapoport's rules to foster constructive academic dialogue. We emphasize the importance of evidence-based research and highlight areas of agreement, including the fallacy of appealing to authority and the necessity for more robust empirical evidence. However, we also challenge their selective citation practices and argue that their narrative itself is subject to the same criticisms they levy. By examining recent works and pointing out overlooked rebuttals, we aim to clarify misconceptions and advocate for a more nuanced understanding of plant intelligence research. This dialogue underscores the need for rigorous, respectful scientific discourse to advance the field.
在他们最近的论文中，金斯兰和泰兹认为，植物智能和植物神经生物学的支持者滥用历史资料来支持他们的主张，这显示出一种偏见模式。他们批评了对主观判断的依赖以及著名科学家对过去文献的系统性滥用。本回应在遵循拉波波特法则的同时回应了他们的批评，以促进建设性的学术对话。我们强调基于证据的研究的重要性，并突出了共识领域，包括诉诸权威的谬误以及需要更有力的实证证据。然而，我们也对他们的选择性引用做法提出质疑，并认为他们的叙述本身也受到他们所提出的相同批评。通过审视近期的作品并指出被忽视的反驳观点，我们旨在澄清误解，并倡导对植物智能研究有更细致入微的理解。这种对话强调了严谨、尊重的科学讨论对于推动该领域发展的必要性。
