3 ms·

That's kind of my point though. I haven't seen sufficient evidence to confidently believe the vodka played a role in the crust. To be fair, I haven't seen suffi

by ahepp 5y ago

That's kind of my point though. I haven't seen sufficient evidence to confidently believe the vodka played a role in the crust. To be fair, I haven't seen sufficient evidence that no difference exists either. It just bugs me a bit that this is called "food science", when experimental design and significance testing are the core of what science is. At the same time, I don't want to be the science police and go around discouraging people from trying to methodically make their recipes better. I love every one of Kenji's (and Stella's) recipes that I try, so much so that I don't really bother getting recipes from other sources than Serious Eats.

tptacek 5y ago
It's science in a different sense than you're using the word; it's cooking informed by science rather than by craft tradition. A good illustration of the distinction is in the debate between Marcella Hazan and Harold McGee, about the value of cooking with good virgin olive oil --- Hazan, from the Italian craft tradition, took umbrage at McGee's observation that heat denudes good oil of most of what makes it good. (I may be misremembering some of the debate, so don't hold me to specifics). McGee presumably didn't do "science" to reach that conclusion (I assume he got there axiomatically, like any good HN scientist would) --- though I'd note that Kenji frequently triangle-tests recipe specifics with panels, which is more science than most food writers employ. But he used science to get there. You don't get a journal article out of that, but it's a more scientific approach than the common alternative, which is why we call it that. (Kenji graduated from MIT, for whatever that's worth.)
- ahepp 5y ago
  If you disagree that science should, in modern parlance, be interpreted as a reference to the scientific method, I guess I have no basis for argument. It's not my intent to be the grammar (semantic, I guess?) police. I appreciate the sort of knowledge creation Kenji's engaging in. And I agree that it's the most rigorous I've seen presented in a remotely accessible way. In some ways that just makes me wish he'd take it a step further. I don't think it takes any special equipment or money or MIT degree to follow the scientific method. It seems likely that Kenji already does record data of some kind somewhere. I'm not saying he needs to look at pie crust with an electron microscope, you could simply list a more detailed procedure and qualitative scoring data in a footnote. I do think equivocating different forms of knowledge with science wastes a great way to introduce people to important scientific concepts. And I think one could argue it risks contributing to confusion about what science is, what it's capable of, and what it's limitations are. Of course, "be the change you want to see in the world" is great advice. And at the risk of seeming to make an insincere "compliment sandwich", I really do like Kenji and his recipes.

by ahepp 5y ago

tptacek 5y ago

It's science in a different sense than you're using the word; it's cooking informed by science rather than by craft tradition. A good illustration of the distinction is in the debate between Marcella Hazan and Harold McGee, about the value of cooking with good virgin olive oil --- Hazan, from the Italian craft tradition, took umbrage at McGee's observation that heat denudes good oil of most of what makes it good. (I may be misremembering some of the debate, so don't hold me to specifics). McGee presumably didn't do "science" to reach that conclusion (I assume he got there axiomatically, like any good HN scientist would) --- though I'd note that Kenji frequently triangle-tests recipe specifics with panels, which is more science than most food writers employ. But he used science to get there. You don't get a journal article out of that, but it's a more scientific approach than the common alternative, which is why we call it that. (Kenji graduated from MIT, for whatever that's worth.)

ahepp 5y ago
If you disagree that science should, in modern parlance, be interpreted as a reference to the scientific method, I guess I have no basis for argument. It's not my intent to be the grammar (semantic, I guess?) police. I appreciate the sort of knowledge creation Kenji's engaging in. And I agree that it's the most rigorous I've seen presented in a remotely accessible way. In some ways that just makes me wish he'd take it a step further. I don't think it takes any special equipment or money or MIT degree to follow the scientific method. It seems likely that Kenji already does record data of some kind somewhere. I'm not saying he needs to look at pie crust with an electron microscope, you could simply list a more detailed procedure and qualitative scoring data in a footnote. I do think equivocating different forms of knowledge with science wastes a great way to introduce people to important scientific concepts. And I think one could argue it risks contributing to confusion about what science is, what it's capable of, and what it's limitations are. Of course, "be the change you want to see in the world" is great advice. And at the risk of seeming to make an insincere "compliment sandwich", I really do like Kenji and his recipes.