Talk:Toxin
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
I don't think we should have a list of foods that have toxins in them on this page, for the simple reason that the page is supposed to make the point that "toxin" is pseudoscience terminology. I think the list of foods should go over at chemophobia instead (or maybe some other article — the GMO page perhaps, since some hippies don't even seem to realize that natural foods have thier own pesticides?) and that this article should focus on treating the concept of "unspecified toxin" as utterly unequivocal bunk. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Do you mean the current list, which is of foods that are toxins rather than foods that have toxins? The latter would obviously be ridiculously long and not serve much purpose. The list could go elsewhere but some mention should stay here I think. Also, "toxin" is not strictly pseudoscience terminology, so maybe a better distinction could be made here. Bongolian (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- While the reality of this does indeed need to be properly reflected in the article (as you rightfully suggest), let's keep in mind that we're not actually an encyclopedic resource ourselves. We should concern ourselves entirely with the woo-aspects and misapplication of the term "toxin", in my humble opinion. As such, I think the article is correct to understand that the altmed use of "toxin" means "badness that literally cannot be specified further". That's obviously not how anyone means "toxin" in science. For one, the question "which molecule?" is understood to be legitimate by non-cranks. It's much like with the woomeister uses of words like "energy" (by which they rarely mean actual physics), or "healing" (by which they rarely mean anything related to cell processes). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- GMO and chemophobia seem a bit tangential. I think it might go better in the Food section of Appeal to nature. What do you think, Percy? Bongolian (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- A perfect fit! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- GMO and chemophobia seem a bit tangential. I think it might go better in the Food section of Appeal to nature. What do you think, Percy? Bongolian (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- While the reality of this does indeed need to be properly reflected in the article (as you rightfully suggest), let's keep in mind that we're not actually an encyclopedic resource ourselves. We should concern ourselves entirely with the woo-aspects and misapplication of the term "toxin", in my humble opinion. As such, I think the article is correct to understand that the altmed use of "toxin" means "badness that literally cannot be specified further". That's obviously not how anyone means "toxin" in science. For one, the question "which molecule?" is understood to be legitimate by non-cranks. It's much like with the woomeister uses of words like "energy" (by which they rarely mean actual physics), or "healing" (by which they rarely mean anything related to cell processes). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)