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 ?

Science and sciences of nature: objects of confusion

 
Science and science of nature: objects of confusion
H.T.:
"The natural sciences seek the mechanisms of phenomena by a very codified method, which relies only on the handling of mathematics, equations, while the kitchen is the activity of production of food seeking to make "good". The reason for the confusion between "science of cooking" and natural sciences? The word "science" has often been used in the sense of "knowledge", which is much broader than the meaning retained by the natural sciences.

Can cooking be "scientific?"
H.T.:
"Contrary to what is sometimes believed because of faulty statements by great cooks of the past, cooking will never be scientific, in the sense of the natural sciences such as physics, biology... On the other hand, it is most certainly a knowledge! Better still, I propose to think that the knowledge of professional cooks cannot be reduced to the knowledge of amateurs, even when they cook every day at home. Cooking is a very specific profession, where technique, hygiene, economics, history, etc. have an essential role, which home cooks do not have to worry about in the same way."

What about the elders?
H.T:
"Lent refers to science...but what science? If it is the "science of cooking", in the sense of knowing, why not, although Menon speaks, before Lent, of "quintessence of sauces". On the other hand, if the science evoked is a science of nature, then Lent is mistaken: cooking will never be a science of nature. Before him, natural sciences, practiced by scientists (of nature: we used to talk about "natural philosophy"), have explored cooking. For example chemists or pharmacists like Jean Darcet (1724-1801), as early as the 18th century. That said, to understand why cooking will never be a science of nature, one must know what exactly a science of nature is. It is not simply a specific activity, as is often believed, but an entirely "speculative" activity (Louis Pasteur distinguished between natural sciences and the applications of these sciences). The natural sciences have an objective which is quite different from the production of food: it is a question of understanding the mechanisms of phenomena. And this particular research is done by a very particular method as well, which consists in: (1) identifying a phenomenon; (2) characterizing it quantitatively; (3) gathering the data into quantitative "laws", that is, into equations; (4) looking for theories quantitatively compatible with laws; (5) looking for consequences of the theories in order to refute them, again quantitatively. This is an entirely different activity from cooking, whether the latter is precise or not. And cooking will never be this activity.
Let's move on, and read Lent, quoted: "Cooking also wants to be a science". What does this mean? A science is either a knowledge or a very particular activity, which seeks the mechanisms of phenomena by the implementation of a method which owes everything to numbers and to the refutation of theories. As cooking is the preparation of food, it is therefore not a science of nature, and this will never be the case! The meaning retained by Carême is therefore necessarily: a knowledge. And yes, the culinary activity is full of technical knowledge. In other words, since Lent uses the meaning "knowledge", his statement is obvious.
Then, when Lent indicates: "Culinary science is more salubrious to the health of men than all the doctrines of those who prolong diseases by speculation", it is indeed, again, the meaning of knowledge that he retains.
Urbain Dubois, Emile Bernard, Jules Gouffé or Joseph Favre pursue the idea, but when they say they use precise measurements, they do not make science of nature for all that, because production, on the one hand, and the research of mechanisms, on the other hand, have nothing in common. One produces, while the other analyzes. It is worthwhile to reread Louis Pasteur, who explained the differences well.
For Favre, he evokes a "scientific cuisine", which would be, of all the sciences, the one that focuses on "the art of preparing food well". Scientific cooking? If this is the meaning of "knowledge", then scientific cooking is a pleonasm, like going up and down; but if the meaning is scientific, then Favre is wrong on principle. Besides, it is not the fact of being precise that makes an activity a science of nature; a precise cuisine is a precise technical activity, which, moreover, is doubled with an artistic and a social component.
Hervé This: "cooking will never be scientific

Even the great Escoffier...

H.T :
Let's move on to this quote from Escoffier: "Cooking, without ceasing to be an art, will become scientific and will have to submit its formulas, which are still too often empirical, to a method and a precision that will leave nothing to chance". I take issue with this proposition, which is either false or tautological. Cooking will never become scientific, in the sense of the natural sciences, because, I repeat, cooking is a production, and not a research of the mechanisms of phenomena. But we have said it enough. I propose now to introduce a new distinction, between technique, technology, and science (of nature).
Cooking, since it is a production of food, will always be a technical activity... but it will always have an essential artistic component, and is therefore absolutely similar to painting, literature, music... In cooking, one wants to make "good"; and good is "beautiful to eat". Yes, you need to have the technique to achieve this, but the artistic choice is preponderant. Cooking consists in choosing the ingredients, their quantities, the processes used to achieve a taste, which must be good. You have to be a good technician to be a good artist. And I propose to distinguish two cuisines: the artisan's cuisine and the artist's cuisine. Not to mention the social component of cooking, but that would take us too far. On principle, cooking can never become scientific, otherwise it would no longer be an activity of producing food, but a science, which would then no longer be cooking.
We must also discuss the question of technology, which is either technical reflection or the application of the results of natural sciences. Cooking is the production of food. It is not forbidden to have a technological reasoning, upstream of the act of cooking, but technique is not the same as technology. And, as said before, natural sciences are not the same as their application. An engineer, a technologist, is not a scientist (of nature).

A little detour through molecular cooking...
H.T. :
Molecular cooking is a technological activity (not scientific in the sense of the natural sciences): Jean-Pierre Poulain proposes that the expression "molecular cooking" designates the application of modern chemical and physical knowledge to cooking. However, since I was the one who introduced the term "molecular cuisine", I can testify that this is not perfectly accurate. In fact, I defined molecular cuisine as the form of cooking that uses renovated utensils (as opposed to those of Paul Bocuse, in La Cuisine du Marché, published in 1976). Going from utensils to the application of knowledge, there is not much difference, but I propose to keep my definition rather than that of J.-P. Poulain.
And since molecular cooking was the application of a particular science of nature, which analyzes culinary processes, a name was needed to designate this science which seeks to understand why sautéed meats turn brown, why soufflés inflate... This science of nature, we named it molecular gastronomy, in 1988, and the term gastronomy was chosen wisely, because it does not mean "ceremonial cooking", contrary to what many believe, but "reasoned knowledge of what relates to food". For the rest of time, there will be cooking, the activity of producing food, which will never be a science of nature, and molecular gastronomy, a science of nature, which will never produce food.

Edouard de Pomiane introduced the word gastrotechnics at the beginning of the 20th century, but I have analyzed the chimerical nature of the proposal: as a microbiologist, he confused technique, technology and science of nature (in addition to publishing many errors in physics and chemistry).

... and cooking Note to note.
H.T. :
All this being said, having hopefully separated natural science and knowledge, molecular gastronomy and cooking, we must discuss a sentence I said during my conference in Strasbourg, which takes on another meaning when taken out of context. Yes, cooking will only evolve if cooks make it evolve. I can make all the proposals for innovations I want, but cooking will only change if these innovations are implemented. Better yet, we must continue the tireless work of explanation, presentation, and collaboration so that the culinary world will take hold of the new techniques proposed, especially in note-to-note cooking. This being the case, I maintain that the natural sciences, and in particular molecular gastronomy, have much to contribute to cooking. For "note-to-note cooking", this cooking that uses c

A "cooking scientist"? Impossible: you can be a scientist, or you can cook, but cooking is not science (of nature), and science is not cooking

1. A friendly correspondant has named himself a "cooking scientist", but this is really impossible, as I shall try to show.

2. Let's observe first that human activities are defined by their goal, and the way to reach it. When you want to make shoes, i.e. being a shoe maker, the goal is to make shoes. And if you want to make food (or rather dishes), the goal is to produce dishes. The way to being able to make shoes is to learn how to make shoes, including having ideas about leather, tools for working it, etc. The way to being able to make dishes is to learn how food ingredients behave when you cut them, when you heat them, when you emulsify, foam, grind, distillate, etc.

3. For cooking (making dishes), there is more, because, as shown in one of my books, cooking is love, art and technique.

4. Accordingly, if you want to reach the goal of "cooking", it's probably good to decide how much of art you want to reach, how much love, how much technique.
I write this because I know chefs who don't think themselves as artist, and are happy to produce technically well done food. This does not mean that these dishes are not good, but the goal is not  to transmit emotions. Indeed, one can be proud to produce well done sandwiches for hungry people having lunch on their office site.

5. Some chefs can have the goal to be artists, i.e. for them the technical question is less important than the "beauty to eat" (to make "good dishes"). Did you ever cry of emotion while eating a dish? I did it twice in my live, and this was truly wonderful.

6. And other chefs focus on the social link. But more generally, I think that chefs would be well advised to choose the proportion of the three components, in order to reach their goal.

7. And science? For sure, the results of science, rather than the scientific activity can be helpful for chefs who want to be good at technique, because technology is exactly the activity of transferring scientific results into technique.

8. But science is very different from cooking!
Because the goal of science is to look for the mechanisms of the phenomena, not producing food!

9. Science does not mean being rigourous, as it is too often confused, in particular because Escoffier popularized the error.

10. By the way, the "way" of science, leading to its goal is to:
- identify phenomena
- characterize them quantitatively (measure everything)
- group the data into equations called "laws" (by fitting)
- induce a theory, introducing new concepts quantitatively compatible with the laws
- look for testable consequences of the theory
- test experimentally these consequences, trying to refute the theory
- and so on, back to the phenomena.

11. As we can see in 10, there is no room for cooking in sciences of nature. Sciences of nature are not producing food, but new knowledge.

12. For sure, one can like (or love) cooking AND science, but when one want to be very good in something, is it possible to have two activities?

13. So, finally, our friendly correspondant can change: he can be a scientist interested in cooking (molecular gastronomy) or a chef interested in science (or the results of science?). Which choice will be his own?

Questions and answers

Today, some questions are answered, in view of a trip to Singapore, at then end of June


1. In recent media reports, it was written that “note-by-note” cooking approach can “stave off energy crisis, eliminate food waste and end world hunger”. Can you please explain more about the NbN approach and its potential?

There are two different ideas: note by note cooking, which is a new way of cooking, and the Note by Note Projects, that include note by note cooking, but aims are improving the efficiency of our food production systems.Let's tell the story this way: today, we are 7 billions humans, and about 1 billion is starving. In 2050, there will be 10 billions, so that we have to plan methods for feeding everybody.

More or less, the agreement is that spoilage is to be fought, and it is true tht if 30% of the producted food is spoiled, avoiding this would improve greatly the efficiency of agriculture.

One way to fight spoilage is to “fractionate” at the farm, which means separating water, and making proteins, sugars, amino acids, phenolics, etc.

This would avoid the transportation of fresh products that spoils... and means transporting water (a truck full of tomatoes means a truck full of 95 % water!).

Moreover, as the Minister of Argentina for agriculture told me, this would have the advantage to make prices more even, which is good for the farmers.

Indeed, In the NbN projects, the farmers will enrich by selling new products... but they would have to make a small fractionation step at the farm... with hardware already existing (and cheap).

This being said, the citizens would receive powders (nowadays, you can already buy tons of proteins from plants)... and they will have to cook : this is exactly Note by note cooking.

By the way, a very fresh information: recent dinners by chefs in restaurants showed that NbN dinners cost twice less and need twice less time to prepare !

2. What made you decide to explore (and promote) NbN to the F&B industry?

Indeed, to tell the truth, in the beginning (1994), I had only the idea that a more rational way of cooking was possible. But more and more, it evolved. First, I considered that a new form of culinary style was possible, and then the many advantages of note by note cooking appeared.

And finally, I can tell you that, being a Gourmand, I was so happy of the Note by Note meal that my friend Pierre Gagnaire served to the New York Times journalist, when they came to Paris to see me about NbN: I am having meals frequently at Pierre's... but this meal was the most exciting, because of entirely new flavours !

3. Can this approach be applicable to the F&B industry in Asia? If yes, how can this approach be integrated with or adopted to Asian cuisine?

Of course, very easily. And the interesting thing is to see how different culinary artists will produce different cuisine. Indeed we can envision “asian NbN cuisine”, or “western NbN cuisine”, etc. (you see, I make a difference between cooking = technique, and cuisine=style)

4. You are scheduled to give a speech to the graduating culinary and pastry batches at Singapore’s At-Sunrice Global Chef Academy this month. Can you share with us some of the advice that you will impart to these newly graduated chefs?

Of course, the main ideas are work, loyalty, kindness, care, boldness... But I know that I shall have to explain that cooking is first love, then art and finally technique.

The technical component of cooking is important, for sure, but it is not difficult... if you accept to detach from tradition (I am not saying that tradition is useless or bad, but I say that tradition is the sum of the successes and advances of the past ; our Great Ancestors would be angry if they saw that we did not contribute to the advancement of culinary art).

But the question of art is most important. It is not difficult and it is not important to grill meat or boil vegetables, but rather the issue is to determine how to do it and why.

Indeed I realize more and more that one main issue around is that the goals are not clear, and it has to be very clear ! Indeed, imagine that you are in Paris ; if you don't understand clearly that your goal is Singapore, you will perhaps arrive in Hong Kong, or Tokyo, but not in Singapore. And it's only when the goal is clear that you can determine the way to reach it. In Greek, the way is “methodon”, method. Yes, when you have the goal, you can try to find the way, and this is “strategy”. And they you can implement, and this is tactic.

Coming back to hard “work”, or to innovation, creativity, etc. , the idea lies in this sentence: “Il faut tendre avec efforts vers l'infaillibilité sans y prétendre”.

And by the way, if I have time, I shall tell them the wonderful story of Michael Faraday. As an orphan, he was going once per week, in the evening, in “Improvement of the mind” sessions... and he became the one of the greatest physical chemists of all times.

But I know that I shall also have to make it very clear to explain the difference between Molecular gastronomy, molecular cooking, mocular cuisine, and note by note cooking/cuisine.

By the way, I would be very happy if I could stimulate the creation of a laboratory for molecular gastronomy in a chemistry department of Singapore

5. How do you see the future of food preparation? Do you think that chefs in Asia should create more molecular gastronomy offerings in their menu?

Indeed you confluse (sorry to tell you that) molecular gastronomy and cooking.

Molecular gastronomy is one science of nature, as physics, chemistry, biology. It is for scientists, not for chefs. Molecular gastronomy cannot be in a menu.

Molecular cuisine, instead, is cooking, for chefs, not for scientists... but this is 35 years old... and this is why we should move fast toward Nbn (like jazz is 50 years old, and new music can be introduced).

The future of food preparation : certainly NbN for the reason given above about 10 billions people on the earth.

Finally “should” Asian chefs offer more molecular cuisine: no, because molecular cuisine is old.

“Should” chef offer NbN ? If they want. The question is art : an artist does what he/she perceives, feels...

But it's true that if a chef serves NbN, this is NEW, and only the new can attract journalists... and guests.

6. What do you think chefs in Asia should do to get more diners to try molecular gastronomy offerings?

Again : confusion between molecular gastronomy (science), on one hand, and cooking, on the other hand. But I don't see the difference between this question and the previous ?

7. What are your future plans concerning NbN approach and molecular gastronomy? Will you be participating in more events here in the region in connection with promoting these culinary disciplines?

For molecular gastronomy, I am doing efforts to spread this science all over the world... and it works well. More and more, in science and technology universities, laboratories for molecular gastronoy are created.

For NbN : for sure, we have to be ready in 2050, and I am promoting all over the world this new way of cooking, with about 1 new countrie per two months. Right now, I am considering how to change the International Contest for Note by Note Cooking (we do tomorrow the 6^th).

More events in Asia? Why not, if people in Asia are interested.

(but remember: molecular gastronomy is not a culinary discipline, it's science ;-) ).