5 ms·

The fact that there’s a long debate about the definition of caramelize might be a hint that people don’t agree about what it means.

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
The Wikipedia article isn't long. if you're referring to the "long debate" here on HN, then no, it doesn't mean very much about the facts of the matter. original article doesn't debate the definition of caramelize, rather is about how it can be achieved. Some things such as "pleasant music" or "good food" do not have crisp definitions. However, chemical reactions are far more clear-cut. They can be described and measured accurately, and debate settled. It doesn't matter how "long" the debate is, there are correct answers. The only debate that IMHO I can see is "what percentage of the sugar has to be caramelized before it counts as a caramelized onion" ? Are there terms for partly and totally caramelized onions?
ycombobreaker 5y ago
It's similar to the debate about "begging the question.". Enough people misuse/misunderstand the phrase that the intended meaning becomes vague: did the author really mean "beg" or "raise"? It doesn't make the incorrect usage correct, but it does mean correct interpretation of _intent_ requires acknowledging incorrect _vocabulary_.
- kbelder 5y ago
  That reminds me of the pronunciation of GIF. There's enough people pronouncing it incorrectly that the incorrect version became an acceptable alternative.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    There are differences. Linguistics is more "descriptive" than "prescriptive", meaning that "it seeks to describe reality" of what people say - if we actually pronounce a word one way and are correctly understood, then that is a valid way that the word is pronounced, whatever it is. In chemistry, validity is not so subjective. it seeks to describe reality by measuring presence of clearly definable chemicals. The question of "what percentage of the sugar in this food item has been converted via caramelisation (or the Maillard reaction)" is not something that we can choose different but equally correct measurements of.

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago

The Wikipedia article isn't long. if you're referring to the "long debate" here on HN, then no, it doesn't mean very much about the facts of the matter. original article doesn't debate the definition of caramelize, rather is about how it can be achieved. Some things such as "pleasant music" or "good food" do not have crisp definitions. However, chemical reactions are far more clear-cut. They can be described and measured accurately, and debate settled. It doesn't matter how "long" the debate is, there are correct answers. The only debate that IMHO I can see is "what percentage of the sugar has to be caramelized before it counts as a caramelized onion" ? Are there terms for partly and totally caramelized onions?

ycombobreaker 5y ago

It's similar to the debate about "begging the question.". Enough people misuse/misunderstand the phrase that the intended meaning becomes vague: did the author really mean "beg" or "raise"? It doesn't make the incorrect usage correct, but it does mean correct interpretation of _intent_ requires acknowledging incorrect _vocabulary_.

kbelder 5y ago
That reminds me of the pronunciation of GIF. There's enough people pronouncing it incorrectly that the incorrect version became an acceptable alternative.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  There are differences. Linguistics is more "descriptive" than "prescriptive", meaning that "it seeks to describe reality" of what people say - if we actually pronounce a word one way and are correctly understood, then that is a valid way that the word is pronounced, whatever it is. In chemistry, validity is not so subjective. it seeks to describe reality by measuring presence of clearly definable chemicals. The question of "what percentage of the sugar in this food item has been converted via caramelisation (or the Maillard reaction)" is not something that we can choose different but equally correct measurements of.