Understanding interdisciplinary perspectives of plant intelligence

Is it a matter of science, language, or subjectivity

Bibliographic Data

ID5297135
AuthorsJennifer Khattar, Paco Calvo (0000-0002-6196-7560), Ina Vandebroek (0000-0002-1663-0045), Camilla Pandolfi (0000-0002-8686-8761), Farid Dahdouh-Guebas
Year2022
Volume18
Issue1
Pages41-41
Publication date2022-05-30
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1746-4269 • E-ISSN: 1746-4269
PublisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1186/s13002-022-00539-3
PMID35637487
OpenAlexW4281714109
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited80

Background Evidence suggests that plants can behave intelligently by exhibiting the ability to learn, make associations between environmental cues, engage in complex decisions about resource acquisition, memorize, and adapt in flexible ways. However, plant intelligence is a disputed concept in the scientific community. Reasons for lack of consensus can be traced back to the history of Western philosophy, interpretation of terminology, and due to plants lacking neurons and a central nervous system. Plant intelligence thus constitutes a novel paradigm in the plant sciences. Therefore, the perspectives of scientists in plant-related disciplines need to be investigated in order to gain insight into the current state and future development of this concept. Methods This study analyzed opinions of plant intelligence held by scientists from different plant-related disciplines, including ethnobiology and other biological sciences, through an online questionnaire. Results Our findings show that respondents' personal belief systems and the frequency of taking into account other types of knowledge, such as traditional knowledge, in their own field(s) of study, were associated with their opinions of plant intelligence. Meanwhile, respondents' professional expertise, background (discipline), or familiarity with evidence provided on plant intelligence did not affect their opinions. Conclusions This study emphasizes the influential role of scientists' own subjective beliefs. In response, two approaches could facilitate transdisciplinary understanding among scientists: (1) effective communication designed to foster change in agreement based on presented information; and (2) holding space for an interdisciplinary dialogue where scientists can express their own subjectivities and open new opportunities for collaboration

Engineering ethics · Epistemology · Interpretation (philosophy · Knowledge management · Linguistics · Sociology · Terminology · Animal and Plant Science Education · Computer Science · Engineering · Plant and animal studies · Plant and Biological Electrophysiology Studies · Psychology

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access