3 ms·
I can't help but think this line of claims has an eerie resemblance to homeopathy, naturalism, and assorted fallacies mixed within. Not hard disproof but enough
by Nasrudith 7y ago
I can't help but think this line of claims has an eerie resemblance to homeopathy, naturalism, and assorted fallacies mixed within. Not hard disproof but enough to raise alarm bells and frustrating to try to pick through truth from the dubious.
Oxidation both being damaging in too much and having a purpose? Perfectly consistent with prior health experience and toxicology that adding something everywhere like a toddler doesn't generally help. Communication with herbivores? That is assuming too many mechanisms and ascribing agency which doesn't exist.
Self-propagation can look remarkably like agency but it isn't it. If a plant puts energy into making its fruits delicious to an animal and gets its seeds distribuited far and wide that plant will spread more than the one whose fruit is horrifyingly toxic. Never did a plant decide "lets be tasty".
- Yeehaw789 7y agoHomeopathy and something that is scientifically verifiable is already at odds with each other. Also 'a plant putting energy' into anything specific other than existing implies agency, doesn't it? Evolution is hard to understand and I distrust anyone who claims to have figured it out fully. Being tasty and toxic doesn't exclude itself simply because we like to think that. I think the whole point of the article is that we don't understand things nearly as much as we think we do. Especially the part about caffeine is fascinating. It'll probably require a paradigm shift to make sense of it all. I have a hunch but I can't articulate it right now.