From the XNUMXs, the belief that plants are able to experience a wide range of perceptions and emotions, and that they are even endowed with supersensory ability, took root in "New Age" circles. What is the origin of this belief and what does science have to say about it?
on plants and polygraph
On February 2, 1966, Cleve Backster, a polygraph operator ("lie detector") instructor, was sitting in his office in New York, and his thoughts wandered to the plant that decorated the room. It occurred to him to try and use the polygraph device in his possession to test the time it takes for water to climb from the roots to the leaves. For this purpose, he watered the roots of the plant, and connected to one above it the same part of the polygraph device that is normally used to measure the change in the electrical activity of the skin. Baxter hypothesized that when the water saturates the leaf its electrical conductivity will increase, and this will be reflected in the polygraph recording. However, to his surprise, instead of a graph that should characterize a gradual increase in electrical conductivity, he received a recording of the type that is considered to indicate the distress of the subject in a routine polygraph test. It immediately occurred to him that this might be an expression of the plant's emotional response to being connected to the device. To confirm his hypothesis, Baxter tried to induce a stress reaction in the plant by various means, including dipping one of the leaves in a cup of hot coffee, but the polygraph's readings matched what a routine test would have interpreted as tiredness or boredom of the subject. Then it occurred to him to try and burn one of the leaves, and immediately the polygraph needle started going wild. Baxter deduced from this that the plant was reading his thoughts and aware of his intentions, and indeed, he went out for a moment to fetch matches from a nearby room, and when he returned he discovered a peak response in the polygraph recording. When he took the matches out of the room (without realizing his intention to burn a leaf) the device's registration indicated what could be interpreted as a relaxation in the plant's emotional response. At this point, Baxter decided to add his business partner to the experiment, and the results repeated themselves. Baxter even discovered that when his accomplice really intended to burn a leaf, this was reflected in the polygraph recording, while when he only thought about the possibility of doing so without backing up his thoughts with a real intention - no emotional response from the plant was observed. This finding led him to conclude that not only are plants endowed with telepathic ability, but that they are also able to distinguish between real and imagined intention.
Baxter published his findings in 1968 in the parapsychological journal "International Journal of Parapsychology", and the belief that plants have perceptions and feelings and even telepathic ability spread like wildfire in the "spiritual" world. The book by Peter Tompkins (Tompkins), a journalist who contributes to the writing of the "New Age" books, and Christopher Bird (Bird), a professional gardener, which was published in 1989, and is called "The Mysterious Life of Plants", also contributed significantly to this. The book describes the experiments of Baxter and other researchers such as Byrd, Hashimoto, Lawrence, Gurwitsch, Rahn and others, experiments which according to the authors prove that plants have consciousness and even supersensory ability. Among other things, it is claimed that plants may react emotionally to the threatening presence of an evil forester or an animal that may endanger them, to the distress of other animals and even to the death of bacteria. It turns out, so it is claimed, that plants are capable of being offended (which is manifested by a prolonged pause in the polygraph recording), experiencing joy and pleasure as well as pain and loneliness, and probably even showing intellectual ability and answering questions through the polygraph recordings.
About science and pseudo-science
The manner in which the subject was presented created the impression in the public that does not trust critical thinking that this is a real and scientifically proven phenomenon (since these are real "studies", not anecdotes and the whims of individual people). However, these "studies" have never been published in scientific journals, which are careful about the methodological quality of the studies published in them, and which make sure that scientific articles nominated for publication pass under the professional eyes of fellow researchers, and they will raise their comments, and express their opinion as to whether they are worthy or not. worthy of publication. This scientific safety net is often criticized by the pseudo-scientific circles, which fail to enter the prestigious club, and which sometimes claim that their articles are rejected due to the scientists' narrow eye on the successes of people outside the academy, and due to opacity and lack of openness to new ideas. But to be honest, science has known many revolutions, and bold and innovative ideas have been published in every possible field of thought. The safety net that filters scientific publications has one simple role: to prevent as much as possible false claims and unfounded theories from taking their place in the body of scientific knowledge. Admittedly, this safety net is far from perfect, and in the past there have been quite a few cases of misleading publications, and even the opposite: good research and ideas that failed (at least not immediately) to penetrate through the net. However, there is no substitute for this safety net - renouncing it will turn science into a long evening of meaningless theories and beliefs (on the side of solid truths), and the magnificent building that has been built with great effort for over 2500 years will collapse and give way to one big chaos.
Indeed, the experiments of Baxter and the other researchers of the "vegetative consciousness" suffered from many methodological flaws, chief among them the lack of control experiments: since the polygraph response can be attributed to static electricity, movement in the room, changes in humidity, etc., there is no assurance that the polygraph records actually occurred as a result of the way in which Baxter treated to plant It is possible, for example, that the moment when the polygraph began to "go wild" was the moment when the water saturated the leaf, and it had nothing to do with Baxter's hidden intentions. It would have been appropriate to repeat the experiment many times, and to create minimal differences between the various repetitions and the initial experiment that would make it possible to isolate and rule out other explanations, but Baxter did not do this, and for some reason did not bother to do so in his subsequent "studies" either, after he had already received sharp criticism for the flaws the methodologies in his experiments. Baxter's interpretation of the polygraph records is also questionable, since for every type of record, whether he expected it or not, he found an explanation based on an emotional response of the plant. Thus, for example, when Baxter poured hot coffee into the sink, he noticed an unusual polygraph reading, and concluded that the plant was upset due to the death of bacteria as a result of the hot liquid that was spilled on them (which the plant picked up telepathically, of course), but when he repeated the action without winning the same " An emotional reaction", he assumed that the plant already knew what to expect, and therefore was no longer surprised by the event (for some reason it did not occur to him that there might not have been any connection between the spilling of the coffee and the change in the electrical conductivity of the leaf at that moment, or that the polygraph records might have been affected by other factors in the room) . Also, how exactly do you differentiate between real intent and fake intent?
Another requirement for receiving the long-awaited entrance ticket to the body of scientific knowledge is the frequency of experiments. Since the results of an experiment may result from poor execution and even from an act of cheating on the part of the researcher (yes, this also happens, unfortunately), then any theory that is innovative will require a series of experiments to be conducted in different laboratories by different researchers, who will succeed in reproducing the results of the original experiment. There are many cases in which the results of an experiment that supposedly confirm a theory of a particular researcher turn out to be irreproducible by other researchers, and in these cases the scientific community does not accept the results of the first experiment as confirmation of the theory, even if no methodological flaw is found in this experiment. This is also what happened with the "vegetative consciousness" theory: despite the repeated claim heard in "New Age" circles that Baxter's experiments were successfully reproduced around the world, the only controlled experiments on the subject that received scientific publication (that is, passed the research safety net) failed to reproduce the expected results . Examples of this are the 1975 study by Horowitz, Lewis and Gasteiger, which was published in the prestigious scientific journal science (note 1), and the 1979 study by Galston and Slayman, which appeared in in American Scientist (note 2) (these studies, by the way, are not usually mentioned in the pseudo-scientific literature dealing with the subject). From time to time the claim is made that the lack of frequency in these experiments is due to the fact that not everyone is able to communicate with plants, and that a special ability is needed to gain an emotional response from the plant being studied (an ability that Baxter probably possessed), however the dependence of the results of the experiment on the experimenter is scientifically very problematic, and there is no No proof that such dependence exists in the case in question.
The safety net of scientific publication and the requirement for the frequency of experiments are doubly justified when it comes to claims and theories that do not align with existing scientific knowledge. The same is true of Baxter's claims regarding the abilities of plants, claims which are inconsistent with the fact that plants do not have a nervous system, and therefore it is unlikely that they have perceptions or feelings. The same goes for the claims about the telepathic ability of plants, and this in light of the fact that over a hundred years of persistent research have not been able to prove the existence of any kind of supersensory perception. The repeated claim in pseudo-scientific circles, that science is not ready to accept what it does not understand, is very far from the truth, but when it comes to such extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on the claimants, and to this day the supporters of the "plant consciousness" theory have not been able to prove their claims (although Because they seem to have done an excellent job of spreading their ideas in circles that don't trust critical scientific thinking).
About a world haunted by demons and education for critical thinking
The idea of "plant consciousness" is just one of a large collection of false beliefs that are common in our world haunted by demons, and it seems that the number of believers in them is increasing, in complete contradiction to the scientific achievements of the new age. We are constantly exposed to huge amounts of false and misleading information, either through the voluminous pseudo-scientific literature (it probably has more readers than the scientific literature, which is more difficult and often less attractive), and through dubious articles in the media, which are often interested on a higher level than spreading the truth. Many of the false beliefs are presented as scientific knowledge, and even educated people do not always have the tools to distinguish between science and pseudo-science, and thus ignorance and knowledge are combined and combined into one subjugation. Particularly vulnerable to this phenomenon are the youth, who are in the process of forming a world view, and who are particularly open to new and exciting ideas. Because of this, education for critical thinking and scientific methodology is needed today more than ever, and it would be good if it found a proper place in the formal education system as well.
Footnotes
Horowitz, KA, DC Lewis, and EL Gasteiger (1975). "Plant primary perception". Science 189, pp. 478-480.
Galston, AW and CL Slayman (1979). "The not-so-secret life of plants". American Scientist, 67, pp. 337-344.
11 תגובות
sparrow
The results are not exactly surprising.
Anyone can perform a very simple experiment. Take 2 leaves of the same size, from the same plant, at the same time. Put them in the box under the same conditions. Give one of them a good attitude, that is, strengthening and loving words, and give the other a bad attitude, that is, speak harsh and hurtful words to him. Something like 3 times a day, and one minute of talking per leaf.
An interesting result is guaranteed to anyone who has the intellectual honesty and courage to perform.
Something about my experience in reversing time and plants, when time moves backwards and forwards and sometimes at a different speed, you can tell, and forgive me because it's dangerous, (dangerous like - "and you beat the grass") that plants move with intelligence in reversing time, have a good day
Jacob Saban
The original study is not published because it was not a study!! A collection of anecdotes is not research. There is no prejudice here on the part of the author of the article. Baxter talked nonsense - and that is what is described here in the article.
If this offends your preconceived notions - look for the problem in yourself and not in science.
The scientists have to come to terms with the fact that they don't know. Before coming to terms with this fact they will remain ignorant.
Why is a study that refutes another study published in scientific journals when the original study is not published? The reason is prejudice. 'Prejudices' are based on unconscious lack of knowledge. Lack of conscious knowledge is a tool of investigation and openness to unknown findings. Unconscious lack of knowledge causes errors. With all the importance of science, which is indisputable, science must realize, first of all, that it does not know.
The writer here admits that theories that were supposedly proven turned out to be mistakes and vice versa. And at the same time he allows himself to dismiss the subject in question as if it did not exist. More studies are presented in the book 'The Mysterious Life of Plants'. Where are they in this article? The intuitive ability to rule out exists in the 'night wise'. I mean - I didn't see it, it doesn't exist. Wake up sir and maybe you will wait.
I once heard of a man who did an experiment with beans. It was said in the experiment to take two jars and put one bean in both. To give one of them "preferential treatment", meaning, more attention, to come check several times a day, etc. (I have no idea what other attention, I don't really remember, but we gave examples), and it was noted that the bean that received more "attention" grew and developed Faster than the one she didn't get.
Has anyone heard or tried this "experiment" and got similar results?
These scientists are bullshitting.
The plants communicate with the environment optically and transmit the information chemically.
For example, if a nearby tree is sick, the healthy tree begins to produce appropriate defense mechanisms according to the disease, both by local modification of a single cell and by sending chemical messages to the tree and roots to defend themselves.
The fact that various plants contain chemicals suitable for the healing of terrestrial animals proves this.
By the way, the response to chemical messages from plants is low, but very high for optics, which is contrary to expectations.
The whole problem arises because of a response schedule, which is different in plants vs. leaf animals.
In the lovable Myth Busters program, they tested the matter empirically, and ruled it out.
It is difficult to call their research methodologies scientific, but their experiments have more weight than the experiments in which the "phenomenon" they studied was discovered.
About 9 years ago, I did my first year of biology studies at Ben Gurion University, Israel.
One of the lecturers was Professor Nourit Bejarno who later also became the dean of the faculty. She has been involved in plant science for years, as far as I know. In one of the classes I heard her say that it has not been proven that a plant has thoughts or feelings or a neural network that is similar in its properties to the neural network of animals. Her next sentence that ended the lecture was "I will not be surprised at all if in a few years science will discover that there is indeed such a system in plants and that they are able to feel".
This sentence left a very strong impression on me, especially since this is such an important researcher in the field of plant sciences - even though it was said in the form of an anecdote only and not as an integral part of the scientific course.
Today, years later, as a biologist myself, I reflect back on those esoteric things that the professor said and I am happy in my heart that such concepts still exist and are even spoken publicly.
Although science has not proven and cannot explain such and such phenomena, there is still room for the other voices to be heard.