|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
In the latest Discover magazine there is mention of a book published back in 1970's, The Secret Life of Plants. The author claimed that he could talk to his philodendrons, and detect their response.
Now, that is what I call bunk.
"However, a person completely ignorant of plant and animal science has
not only tested plants for perception and feeling, he claims that he has
scientific proof that plants experience a wide range of emotions and
thoughts. He also claims that plants can read human minds. His name is
Cleve Backster and he published his research in the International
Journal of Parapsychology ("Evidence of a Primary Perception in
Plant Life," 10, 1968). He tested his plants on a polygraph machine and
found that plants react to thoughts and threats."
I say again, that is bunk, bunk, bunk......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Backster also claims that a philodendron can read human minds
I agree this is bunk, wwh. While philodendron are known to be tolerant of low light, they have too much horticulture to waste their time on a man like Backster. A philodendron would sooner read Ovid in the original Greek than a mind like his.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Careful there, plutarch, you are getting close to bunk, attributing preferences to philodendrons.
I once had college English teacher who foamed at the mouth about the "pathetic fallacy" - attributing human faculties to animals. I don't think he would have survived the allegation that plants have mental processes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
attributing preferences to philodendron
Philodendrons don't have "preferences", wwh, but they do have good breeding. Its more a matter of disdain than discrimination.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
Duesberg's "crusade" is considered dangerous by many because it subverts the "safe sex" message. Duesberg's detractors argue that his public stridency as an "HIV-refusenik" is a huge gamble and therefore irresponsible because his science is no more conclusive than the science he impugns.
See, here's my dilemma. How can *we* know this? From Deusberg's perspective, the AIDS establishment is endangering lives, because it subverts the message that drug use is dangerous and that more care needs to be taken on diagnosis. (I don't recall reading this anywhere. I'm inferring what he might claim based on my understanding of what I thought I read.)
but it also warns that Duesberg has invested so much in his crusade, he may have lost his objectivity.
Deusberg might lodge the same complaint against the establishment. (I keep using the term 'establishment.' I don't mean it to be derogatory. Just descriptive.)
Perhaps we ought to consider a further refinement on your qualifications for "bunk", wwh. Fraud, ignorance evangelical apostasy more distinguished for its potential for public harm than for public good.
Dykstra's second (of three) golden rules of scientific research is to "choose soundness over relevance." Also, Galileo was evangelical (and probably Urban VIII thought he was acting for the public good).
I grant it is easier to debunk Duesberg's mission than his science.
Maybe I picked a bad example to make my point. I see there are several issues here.
1) That it's not uncommon for scientific disputants to use rhetorical language to denounce their opponents. (They may not always use the word 'bunk', but they impart all that it connotes in their accusations.)
2) That it seems damned near impossible for laymen to figure out what is and what is not bunk, given that even those on the loosing side are generally more knowledgeable than we are on a subject in dispute.
3) That there is a difference between how the word is commonly used and what its etymology or lexicography might suggest.
There are some things that are surely bunk, by even the strictest standards. Creationism is bunk (even if some minuscule number of its scientists are competent and make legitimate contributions). Flat-earth is bunk. Astrology is bunk. Crop circles (as signs from extra-terrestrials) is bunk. There are lots more. (Madam Cleo's readings, Peter Popoff's healings, etc.) But there is this area where scientists disagree and attempt to effect political solutions to their disagreements (often because there are political consequences). I feel very uncomfortable with lay persons making decisions about what is bunk in disputes between specialists and possibly pruning entire branches of human knowledge.
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Ever heard of the garden and community of Findhorn in Scotland, guys? Scientists have never been able to come up with an empirical explanation for the enormity and superabundance of the plant growth there. Here, the claims of enhancing growth by acknowledging and inter-reacting with the spiritual life of plants seem to be substantiated.
And one of my best friends who was a curator at a women's art museum in Edinburgh for some time, felt so strongly about her experiences there, in the Findhorn community, that when she died 4 years ago she left a request to have her ashes scattered there, at the Garden of Findhorn. Her wishes were so honored.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
there is an area where scientists disagree
Can we call this area the axis of ambiguity [not to be confused with the "Axis of Evil"]?
Within this "axis of ambiguity", would it be reasonable to weigh the case by the urgency of its implications rather than by the celebrity of its advocate?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 618
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 618 |
Peter Duesberg is a loony. If you wish, I will happily debunk his theories, or at least those listed on his web site. They are based on an incomplete understanding of epidemiology, statistics, and the definition, clinical course, and pathology of AIDS. I have no doubt that he is an excellent researcher within the cancer field, but for the good of science and society as a whole, I hope he refrains from further comment on HIV-AIDS.
Yes, I realise this is just my opinion, and I realise that Mr Duesberg is entitled to his, but it bothers me that he is using his reknown in one field to make comment in another.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
Within this "axis of ambiguity", would it be reasonable to weigh the case by the urgency of its implications rather than by the celebrity of its advocate?
Sure. That's not what I do. Like I said, I follow the majority on this one, because I don't know any better. And I'm not sure that's any more reasonable. OTOH, I'm not sure that your argument isn't a false dichotomy. There are urgent implications either way.
But even were I to accept the urgency vs celebrity argument as a justification for "choosing the path directed by urgency," I don't think I'd be justified in calling Deusberg a purveyor of bunk. (This is not to say that others would not or are not justified in doing so, only that I don't consider myself competent to justifiably apply the term.)
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
Peter Duesberg is a loony.
Maybe he is. I haven't been to his site recently. I vaguely recall reading that he would voluntarily inject himself with HIV. Regardless of any scientific basis he might have, that seems like a pretty loony proposition.
Now, Doc, you can debunk to your heart's content. And I might be able to follow a few of the statistical arguments - maybe. But the rest of it, I would just have to take your word for (or go to school for medicine myself). You have some expertise for judging Deusberg's theories as bunk. Maybe Bill does and maybe a few others. But I'm not sure what the rest of us could do but parrot what you tell us.
k
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,706
Members9,187
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
197
guests, and
51
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
