I was recently invited in a programme mixing science and... I don't understand exactly what, but it included "food pairing".
I
am publishing again and again that the theory of food pairing is not
scientific, and I also observe that this "theory" is promoted by people selling advices to chefs, often trying to convince that there is science behind.
You will see why I am strongly opposed to this way of doing on other posts of this blog, but it's enough to know that "good" means "beautiful to eat", and this is not a question of technique, but of art... and art escapes the rules : the Diabolus in musica is appreciated today ; no science about that.
You will see why I am strongly opposed to this way of doing on other posts of this blog, but it's enough to know that "good" means "beautiful to eat", and this is not a question of technique, but of art... and art escapes the rules : the Diabolus in musica is appreciated today ; no science about that.
So that I don't want to
participate to something where this wrong theory is promoted.
By
the way, in the proposed programme, I could see that there is question of "aromas", and
frequently, there is a confusion between aromas and odors.
But
more generally, I see too often people speaking of science, when indeed
they are doing technology or technique, and this is not fair.
Engineers
are engineers, technologists are technologists, technicians are
technicians, and scientists are scientists. All these people are
different, with different goals and different methods.
Another point: since the creation of molecular gastronomy, by me and Nicholas Kurti, there has been many people
- confusing molecular gastronomy and molecular cooking/ molecular cuisine (and this is bad for the public)
- confusing science and technology (and this is bad for students)
- confusing everything about "science and cooking" (and this is bad for everybody
- giving ( or trying to give) new names to the science called molecular and physical gastronomy (and this not very honest)
Here are some explanations :
1.
molecular and physical gastronomy is sometimes named " molecular
gastronomy" for short ; it is a scientific activity, done in
laboratories, by chemists or physicists, or biologists. This is science,
not technology, and not technique
2.
molecular cooking is the technique of cooking with modern tools that
were transferred from laboratories to kitchens (thermocirculators,
liquid nitrogen, siphons, pumps, centrifuge, rotary evaportaors...)
3. molecular cuisine is a culinary trend (chefs using molecular cooking for making new kind of dishes)
4.
science (sciences of nature) is an activity of "looking for the
mechanisms of phenomena using a specific method using experiments and
calculation"; it has nothing to do with technique and technology
5. technique means "to do something". For example, cooking includes a technical component
6. technology means using the results of science for improving technique
7.
and finally, there is art, and one of my book explains well that
cooking includes a social component, an art component, a technical
component.
By
the way, I hope that my friends know about "note by note cooking"?
This IS the future, the next new technique, and already some "note by
note cuisine" is appearing all over the world.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire
Un commentaire? N'hésitez pas!
Et si vous souhaitez une réponse, n'oubliez pas d'indiquer votre adresse de courriel !