4 ms·

Incorrect. I said specifically that spray oils 'could' complicate the process and that they didn't test for it. That's all. You're reading the rest into it you

Incorrect. I said specifically that spray oils 'could' complicate the process and that they didn't test for it. That's all. You're reading the rest into it yourself. I never once said that additives affect things. Additives are a random addition that serve no purpose in the process of seasoning a cast iron pan. They didn't test for throwing a handful of salt or baking soda in either. Nor should they. There's no need.

taeric 12y ago
The point of this thread is that they should either a) test for it, b) acknowledge that they didn't test for it, or c) cite some place that has. To dismiss it as a bad idea with no reason is precisely the topic of this thread. You brought up that it would complicate things. Of course it would, but that is basically beside the point. Edit: apologies, I should say with no evidence, not reason.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - taeric 12y ago
    You do realize you just took this in a full circle, right? It was agreed at the beginning that the argument is compelling. To the point that there really isn't much concern with this one occurrence, but that it happens throughout the article. Does it make for a good read? Sure. Probably is even good advice on a good technique. What it is not, is "science." That is, specifically, this entire thread was because someone was pedantic that this shouldn't be called "science" as it was presented. And it should be noted that many of us agreed. To the point that the thread was renamed on HN.
    - JohnTHaller 12y ago
      The only reason I removed my comment is because I determined that it wasn't worth continuing as it seemed you were 'arguing past me' about a different point than the one I was making. You hadn't yet replied when I deleted it. It seems you are continuing to argue against a position I never took up in this comment here. I don't care about the article, personally. And I don't think the article is 'scientific', even if they cite and follow certain 'science' aspects at different points. I never claimed that it was. So, I'm unsure why you keep arguing against a point that I am not making when I agree with you that the original article isn't 'science' and that science doesn't belong in the title. I had responded to your nitpick with one specific point where I think you are incorrect. There's no reason for the original authors to have to do anything at all related to additives. They don't need to test for additives, they don't need to cite that they are harmful. It's enough for them to state that they did not use them and why they recommend against them. Which they did. Additives are a completely unnecessary complication in the process of seasoning. Just as a contamination would be an unnecessary complication to a science experiment (please note again that this is an analogy and in no way means I believe the article is 'science-based'). There's no reason at all for the additives to be there. And no reason for the authors to test for them or cite anything related to them. The same as there's no reason to test or cite how well it works with the presence of dirt, salt, sand, baking soda, or moon rocks. That is the one point I was making. I will not be replying again as this is a poor use of time.

taeric 12y ago

The point of this thread is that they should either a) test for it, b) acknowledge that they didn't test for it, or c) cite some place that has. To dismiss it as a bad idea with no reason is precisely the topic of this thread. You brought up that it would complicate things. Of course it would, but that is basically beside the point. Edit: apologies, I should say with no evidence, not reason.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- taeric 12y ago
  You do realize you just took this in a full circle, right? It was agreed at the beginning that the argument is compelling. To the point that there really isn't much concern with this one occurrence, but that it happens throughout the article. Does it make for a good read? Sure. Probably is even good advice on a good technique. What it is not, is "science." That is, specifically, this entire thread was because someone was pedantic that this shouldn't be called "science" as it was presented. And it should be noted that many of us agreed. To the point that the thread was renamed on HN.
  - JohnTHaller 12y ago
    The only reason I removed my comment is because I determined that it wasn't worth continuing as it seemed you were 'arguing past me' about a different point than the one I was making. You hadn't yet replied when I deleted it. It seems you are continuing to argue against a position I never took up in this comment here. I don't care about the article, personally. And I don't think the article is 'scientific', even if they cite and follow certain 'science' aspects at different points. I never claimed that it was. So, I'm unsure why you keep arguing against a point that I am not making when I agree with you that the original article isn't 'science' and that science doesn't belong in the title. I had responded to your nitpick with one specific point where I think you are incorrect. There's no reason for the original authors to have to do anything at all related to additives. They don't need to test for additives, they don't need to cite that they are harmful. It's enough for them to state that they did not use them and why they recommend against them. Which they did. Additives are a completely unnecessary complication in the process of seasoning. Just as a contamination would be an unnecessary complication to a science experiment (please note again that this is an analogy and in no way means I believe the article is 'science-based'). There's no reason at all for the additives to be there. And no reason for the authors to test for them or cite anything related to them. The same as there's no reason to test or cite how well it works with the presence of dirt, salt, sand, baking soda, or moon rocks. That is the one point I was making. I will not be replying again as this is a poor use of time.