Skip to content

Plant sentience: The burden of proof

Jon Mallatt, David G. Robinson, Michael R Blatt, Andreas Draguhn, Lincoln Taiz

Animal Sentience April 28, 2023 DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1802 (opens in new tab)

Relevant Not relevant

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Commentary Peer reviewed
Citations 15
Key points Argues that Segundo-Ortin and Calvo's (2023) target article, though more evidence-based than earlier plant sentience work, retains major problems: it relies on a false dichotomy between hardwired and sentient plants, does not meet the full burden of proof for an extraordinary claim, redefines cognitive terms confusingly, implies cell consciousness, neglects more parsimonious explanations, and downplays counterevidence. The authors contend these issues should be resolved before plant sentience becomes a full-fledged scientific domain.

Abstract

Segundo-Ortin & Calvo’s (2023) target article takes a less speculative and more evidence-based approach to plant sentience than did previous works promoting that idea. However, it retains many of the idea’s longstanding difficulties such as starting from a false dichotomy (plants must be either hardwired or sentient), not accepting the full burden of proof for an extraordinary claim, confusingly redefining accepted cognitive terms, implying cell consciousness, not adopting the most parsimonious explanations for plant behaviors, and downplaying all the counterevidence. We advise rectifying these problems before plant sentience can become a full-fledged scientific domain.

Citations in the library

Cited by 2

Cites 6

and 1 more in the library

Related reading