Ivan Seeking said:
If we can't read the paper, then we really don't know what they are saying. Perhaps they cite evidence.
Are you saying that the journal is not reputable, or are you saying that a reputable journal publishes the claims of psychics?
Look, I'm not defending this stuff, but we hold debunking to the same standards as we do claims. What makes us feel warm and fuzzy has no bearing on our approach.
I’m not quite sure I entirely understand what you’re saying, Ivan, beyond that, I think, somehow I haven’t said something well enough. I’ll expound some.
Evidently the reputable journal detected a rise in the interest/conversation/public dialogue about the consciousness of plants as a result in a rise in claims by psychics who claim to communicate with plants. And the detected rise in public dialogue spurred the reputable journal forward to survey literature from a broader scope of society to see how various segments of society perceive the topic.
And, so, yes, reading the journal article may very well be interesting from the perspective of reading a survey of broader perception about plant consciousness in society at large.
And, so, yes, I admit to a knee-jerk response to people saying that point-blank quackery inciting serious inquiry wherein I can’t fathom why any wide hearing is even being given to psychics et al in the first place. Further pondering causes me to wonder if by credible people responding to non-credible people the latter are encouraged and lent some sort of credibility by association. Then again, should no one save credulous people respond to psychics et al then those people’s trade would flourish even further.
However, as you, Ivan, pointed out, the abstract says that it’s an overview of a larger social view, so it’s rather a sociological look at whom is viewing the consciousness of plants and how. It might be interesting to spring the $29.95 to read the article and see. I wouldn’t anticipate any conclusions about the veracity of the plant sentience claims but only a social perception.
So, I’m not saying that I think the journal’s not credible, and I’m not saying that I think a reputable journal is publishing the claims of psychics. What I attempted to say – in terrible shorthand -- in post #17 was that I didn’t properly digest the sentence in the abstract until you pointed it out to me in your post #16. I hope I did a better job here.