Problem: The hosts of the podcast also interviewed another Plant Biologist, Lincoln Taiz, who raised concerns with Gagliano's use of anthropomorphized vocabulary such as "hearing" and "learning behavior." This idea has been applied to the study of other non-human organisms as well, suggesting that by characterizing study subjects with human-like grammar, we risk overestimating results or interpreting them with bias. On which side of the argument do you stand? Do you agree that anthropomorphizing non-human organism can affect how we learn and understand organisms, or do you think by using these types of metaphors, researchers can think more broadly and come up with more creative hypotheses? Explain.