No, cooking is not science !

 I had to answer to a confuse message that I got by email : 

No, cooking is not science !

Or more precisely, one can speak of the "science of the cook", but this means only a knowledge, and this knowledge can include advanced techniques. But in the meaning of sciences of nature, it would be a nonsense to say that cooking is science, as explained well in the introduction of the Handbook of Molecular Gastronomy.

Cooking means "producing food", and this is technique + art

Sciences of nature mean "exploring the mechanisms of phenomena using the scientific method", ie.

- identification of phenomena

- quantitative characterization of phenomena (measurement)

- grouping the data in equations (said "laws" in the past)

-making theories, by the introduction of new concepts quantitatively compatible with the equations

- looking for theoretical consequences of the theory

- experimental tests of the theoretical predictions

- and so on forever, improving and improving the knowledge.

You see : no common activity... but if you study the mechanisms of phenomena occurring during cooking, then this science is called molecular and physical gastronomy, or molecular gastronomy for short.

I add that there is a difference between technique, technology and science.

And of course, I don't make a hierarchy between cooks, technologists and scientists : a good scientist is better than a poor cook, and a good cook is better than a poor scientist.

One question to finish: why do some people want to say what they are not? In big letters, in my office, it is written "you are what you make".

I.e.

if you cook you are a cook, and this is a wonderful (if do it well, if you like it)

If you do technology, you are a technologist, and this is wonderful (if you do it well, if you like it)

If you do scientific research, you are a scientist, and this is wonderful (if you do it well, if you like it)

If you teach, you are a teacher, and this is wonderful (if you do it well, if you like it)

But let's always be clear with our activities: they are better done when the goal is clear and when the method is well suited to reacing the goal, isn't it ?