3 ms·
Mentioning a couple hypotheses (drying oils make for better seasonings) with a couple hypothesized mechanisms does not make this a science based approach. A sci
by vikramkr 6y ago
Mentioning a couple hypotheses (drying oils make for better seasonings) with a couple hypothesized mechanisms does not make this a science based approach. A science based approach (in this particular chemical context) would involve controlled experiments (off the top of my head, what about the roughness of the cast iron? Carbon content? Time to warm up the oven? Why six layers and not twelve? Etc etc). Claims like "youbneed to use 100% pure oil, I think that's why it might not be working for you" would not be present - science based involves testing that hypothesis and seeing if the purity or brand or whatever of the oil matters There! There would be some key metrics to measure, such as some molecular analysis of the residue, some test for non-stick ability, and perhaps a longevity test.
It might seem like a bit much, but this is an article presenting the conclusions of "science" as recommendations to pursue in your every day life, and a lack of scientific rigor can create false confidence in false solutions. For something as complex as polymerization in the varied environment of home cast iron seasoning, there's an enormous amount of work and confounding factors you would need to sift through (seasoning on the stove vs oven?). Without that rigor, you might have stumbled into the best way of doing things, but as other comments suggest, its more likely your lack of rigor has led to missing things like the seasonings tendency to flake.
- smichel17 6y agoAs I mentioned in my other comment in this thread, the linked article goes in the step in the right direction by having hypotheses at all. That's why this article remains so influential despite its hypothesis (flax oil makes for better seasoning) having been disproved. If someone wants to dethrone this article, they need to do it with more/better science to support an alternative hypothesis (e.g. a recommendation for a different oil). Without this, it is impossible to establish the credibility of different recommendations.
- vikramkr 6y agoIt then takes a step in the wrong direction by presenting the hypothesis as a scientific conclusion. Everyone has a hypothesis. Having a hypothesis doesn't make it special or science based. Every anecdote driven article is presenting a hypothesis, and an awful lot of them Couch their anecdotes in potential scientific explanations to sound more credible. Theres not a need to do "more" science - there's a need to do basically any science. I'll grant that the societal context means that someone has to do more work and then present their findings in an equally engaging way (with the necessary anecdotes etc), but science based?
- ahepp 6y agoMost popular "food science" falls into this trap, as far as I've seen. Even my preferred resources such as seriouseats or America's Test Kitchen. A teaspoon of vodka in the dough makes the pie crust flakier? At the very least it seems like one could say "we cooked 5 pies each way, and a blind taste test found that 4/5 tasters rated the batter with vodka as flakier". That seems like the minimum amount of effort to call something scientific. It doesn't require any specialized equipment or training. We're not even getting into detailed methodology, or significance testing. Yet still, even the best sources I see make completely opaque claims such as "we found reverse creaming makes the cake more dense and buttery, while traditional creaming results in a traditional fluffy cake".
- germinalphrase 6y agoAn aside: America’s Test Kitchen “Best Recipes” book taught me how to cook in my early twenties. Having a page or two of “we tried this, hated this, liked this tweak, so that’s why we do...” helped tremendously in learning how/why recipe design and cooking technique matter.
- kls 6y agoHonestly the only works that I have seen that comes close is the Modernist Cuisine, a lot of effort went into the why and how of cooking and the culinary arts.
- foobarian 6y agoI think there is a habit in popular literature to equate "science" with "facts obtained by reading scientific and/or engineering literature." Hence all the talk about polymerization or drying oils etc. They did not mean to imply "scientific-method-based."