A random reaction 1/3 of the time means nothing conclusive was happening. If a plant felt the pain of another plant, you would expect to see a reaction almost every time.

Because they couldn’t find a connection with one experiment, they kept trying to find a connection. They couldn’t find a connection no matter what they tried.

I can predict the result of a coin flip 50% of the time. You need something pretty good to say your test results are anything but statistical noise.

Please start citing sources that are not stupid. Also please include page number.

Finally, theory-independence is garbage. It’s an attempt to de-legitimize modern scientific principles with the hope that pseudoscience will rise to prominence as some kind of alternative to discovering information about reality. It’s both a tool of flim-flammers and one of their weaknesses: because these people lack rigor, they attack their own credibility by opening their mouths and allowing foolishness to gurgle forth. Theory independence doesn’t even exist in pseudoscience; in fact, these charlatans are more likely to let their entrenched beliefs remain despite all opposition.

Sure plants respond to stimuli, just like rocks and olives and helium atoms.

btw, which commercial airliner goes at 500+ mph at sea-level?

one straw instead of many and focus on the first part of the experiment with the plant.

The thing that let the piano wire through was it was solitary and the tree could expand around it. The cluster of star hit at once crushing itself in as other pieces hit.