Dans mes propositions de rénovation de l'enseignement supérieur, je fais l'hypothèse qui les étudiants sont capables de travailler tout seul, quand un but leur est fixé ou, mieux, quand ils ont identifié leur propre but. La question m'est toutefois posés par des collègues d'un certain réalisme, comme ils disent, à savoir que les étudiants ne seraient pas capables de ce travail autonome. Je ne suis pas d'accord avec eux : il y a des étudiants qui en sont capables et d'autres qui n'en sont pas capables. Pour les premiers, on retrouve l'idée de Richard Feynman selon laquelle l'initiative qui avaient conduit à ces merveilleux Cours de physique était inutile. Pour les autres, on pourrait être tenté de penser que, puisqu'ils ne sont pas capables, ils n'ont pas leur place à l'université... mais on peut aussi faire l'hypothèse plus positive que le déclic viendra plus tard (quand ? ) et partir sur la base du fait que tout étudiant doit avoir sa chance.
Bref, je propose en conséquence de ne pas traiter tous les étudiants de la même façon, de donner de l'autonomie à ceux qui en sont capables et d'épargner ainsi du temps pour ceux qui ont besoin de soutien, d'accompagnement.
Pour autant, mon postulat initial reste vrai : il est bien impossible d'apprendre à la place de quelqu'un, et c'est la raison pour laquelle je pense que l'enseignement est une tâche impossible... à moins que l'on ne désigne ainsi l'activité qui consiste organiser le travail d'apprentissage, à organiser les études. Pour les étudiants du premier groupe, on peut être un interlocuteur, et, pour les autres, on doit organiser leurs études, avec des rendez vous bien plus courts, en s'assurant qu'ils arrivent à rester focaliser. Certes, ces étudiants ont le droit de vote, ils sont adultes, mais pourquoi se fatiguer s'ils ne montrent aucun intérêt ?
Je vois ainsi un système d'instruction (on observe que je ne dis plus "éducation") qui proposerait à chaque étudiant une série d'étapes successives, avec des distances inter étapes déterminées d'après la capacité de chaque étudiant à faire seul le chemin proposé. Et je vois ainsi, bien plus clairement, que les étapes doivent être de plus en plus longues à mesure que l'on avance dans les études supérieures. Ce qui n'est pas sans nous rappeler la pratique des thèses à l'École normale supérieure : le doctorant rencontre une fois son directeur de thèse, qui lui donne un sujet, et il part ensuite travailler pendant 3 ans pour revenir avec le résultat de son travail. Bien sûr, il est pas interdit de venir parler entre-temps, de demander des conseils, de discuter des orientations, et c'est là que le directeur de thèse mérite véritablement son nom, et non pas en transformant le doctorant en de la main d'oeuvre pour ses propres travaux.
On se souvient que j'ai rappelé que la fin de la deuxième année de master marque la fin des études et le commencement du travail scientifique ou technologique responsable. Non pas nécessairement entièrement autonome ou indépendant, mais responsable. Bien sûr, on on comprend que certains jeunes scientifiques puissent avoir besoin de plus de conseils que d'autres : les doctorants les moins autonomes sont en réalité moins "bons" que ceux qui sont entièrement autonome, parce que, même si une certaine mode insuffisamment réfléchie propose que l'interaction et la collaboration soient des panacées, il n'en reste pas moins que des Albert Einstein n'avaient besoin de personne pour révolutionner la physique, pas plus que des Faraday, des Boltzmann, des Dirac, des Andrew Wiles en mathématiques. Wiles ? Pour s'attaquer à la conjecture de Fermat, il s'est retiré du monde pendant trois ans, sans jamais aller au laboratoire. Il n'était disponible pour aucune de ces chronophages "réunions de laboratoire", de ces grands messes de laboratoire, d'unité, de département, que sais-je? Et c'est bien lui qui a réussi où les autres, plus empoussiérés du monde, avaient échoué.
Bref, il est intéressant que voir que les plus grandes réalisations scientifiques ont si souvent été le fait de chercheurs isolés, et non pas en constante interaction comme cela est proposé aujourd'hui. Pour la recherche comme pour l'enseignement, il faut laisser ceux qui en sont capables travailler sans perdre de temps.
Mais je reviens à cette question des études pour observer, donc, qu'il y a des cas très différents et qu'il est idiot de mettre tout le monde dans le même sac. Si l'école élémentaire parvient à faire des classes où les professeurs suivent chacun, pourquoi l'université n'y parviendrait-elle pas ? Et a fortiori les grandes écoles ? J'ajoute que je ne méconnais pas les initiatives de nombreux collègues de l'université, qui n'ont pas attendu pour remplacer les cours magistraux par le dispositif plus personnalisés. Des cours magistraux ? Ceux-ci sont peut-être inutiles à moins que le professeur ne donne une toute autre perspective que le reste du dispositif : professer, parler devant, ce n'est pas remplir des cruches, mais allumé des brasier. Et l'on se reportera à mes discussions précédentes sur la question de la responsabilité du professeur à ce propos, qui doit éviter de transmettre sa propre maladie pour plutôt conduire chaque étudiant à découvrir sa propre voix.
On le voit l'instruction supérieure (puisque je me refuse à parler d'éducation) est une invitation à l'indépendance, à l'autonomie, et surtout à l'étude éclairée.
mercredi 18 juillet 2018
lundi 16 juillet 2018
Many answers about note by note cooking
Today, a friendly lettre from a friend in Singapore. It begins by "Before you left I mentioned I had some questions to ask you, here they are (note I might be a bit neophobic)"
Neophobia is the human behavior of being cautious about new food. This is a quality, otherwise the human species would not be here today: we would have been poisoned by the consumption of plants (remember that nature is very dangerous, and we eat only the fruits and vegetables that we can eat, either because we are manipulated by plants, for dispersing their seeds, or because we domesticated some dangerous species).
I was thinking of the future and the use of Note by Note, and thought that, nutritionally, we could have a great gap between rich and pour when we separate components. We know a vitamin or phytochemical will be inevitably more expensive than a starch, cellulose or sugar.
Nowadays, we have more equality in this sense. When buying a vegetable or fruit, it comes as whole and everyone has access to it. It is, in a way, a more fair game.
This is really true : the compounds that makes up the majority of food ingredients (water, protides, glucides, lipids) are much more abundant than vitamins, for example, and this explain why they are cheaper. This is also part of the explanation of obesity in the world: when you eat too much fat and sugars, you gain weight and sick. And it is not a surprise that the poorest populations are the most obese in developed countries... But this last observation also shows that there is not much equality, even today.
My question is: what are the advantages of separating, at the farm, produce in its pure components besides increasing food creation possibilities? Why not just dry a whole carrot?
Indeed, forget about note by note cooking as a new art as a start, and let's start from facts :
1. we will have to feed 10 billion people in 2050, and the sole solution today is to fight spoilage. Why spoilage? In part because we consume fresh products: hence the idea to fractionate at the farm (by the way remember that the milk and wheat industries are already fractionating).
2. if we fractionate at the farm, we make the prices more level, and this is good for everybody, because if the efficiency of agriculture is increased, the price of products is not hampered by the price of spoilage.
3. imagine that someone would be able to pay for a fruit, why would he pay more for the fractions ?
Now, drying is very energy consuming, and membrane techniques are much more powerful. In France, il particular, they are already applied for making drinkable water as well as for milk fractionation.
Moreover, having the fractions of carrots (including vitamins and phytochemicals) has the advantage that :
- we would not transport water
- we would probably save energy for cooking
- we decide for the nutritional properties of food
- we decide for the toxicology of food (including managing questions of allergies).
We have quite a few studies and line of thoughts suggesting that highly processed food can be detrimental to our health.
One example from the book Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition, T. Colin Campbell
“Every apple contains thousands of antioxidants whose names, beyond a few like vitamin C, are unfamiliar to us, and each of these powerful chemicals has the potential to play an important role in supporting our health. They impact thousands upon thousands of metabolic reactions inside the human body. But calculating the specific influence of each of these chemicals isn’t nearly sufficient to explain the effect of the apple as a whole. Because almost every chemical can affect every other chemical, there is an almost infinite number of possible biological consequences.”
This question of transformed food being detrimental to health is not correctly managed in the public debate. For example, recently, there were articles about a certain (and bad) "Nova" categorization of food... but one forget to say that if you eat too much salt, sugar and fat, you get sick ! And remember that smoking is the worst... and main cause ! Drinking alcohol as well, is bad. And driving too fast. And, etc.
This is exactly the topic of my last book: bad faith! Because we all say that we want healthy food, but we forget that dietetics knows ONLY ONE rule: we have to eat of everything in small quantities, and make exercise. Do we apply this rule? No, certainly no... and this is why we are too fat, and sick.
I understand you classify process food/artificial food as any food that was, in some way, modified from its natural status. Example: boiled potato, scramble egg, etc. But when drying, coping (color or flavor compounds additions) and extracting pure components, we made those dishes much more artificial than boiling a potato.
Is it true ? For years, I tried to tackle this question without finding an answer. Consider a choucroute, for example: the cabbage was selected, cultivated, fermented, cooking for hours. The sausage was produced from meat that was destroyed, added with ingredients, processed... About spicy crab? The sauce seems to be important, and you know perfectly how it is made, with spices addition. Indeed I could not find an "index of naturality".
And to finish about the potato:
- the potato that we have today is the result of MANY selections, like apples are certainly not wild apples
- is boiling more or less "natural" (indeed we should say artificial) than frying ?
I am thinking of ingredients’ natural “chemical balance” or proportions and level of processes.
I don’t think, eating Note by Note, or highly process food once in a while will kill you, but if Note by Note is the future of food, how much are we looking into its health impact when consumed daily?
When you speak of "natural balance", may I tell you that you are going too far ? There is no proof that there is any balance at all ! And the proof was given by elementary nutritional studies: when you give meat stock only to dogs, they die. I remind you the sole rule in dietetics: we have to eat of everything in small quantities and make moderate exercise.
By the way, all compounds from fruits, vegetables, meat, fish, etc. are toxic at various levels. And this is why we have to vary, to change, otherwise we would get over the toxicity level. For example, one whole nutmeg would kill you; or basil, or tarragon, or the phenolics of grapes; or lycopene from carrots; or beta carotene from carrots...
This is why I am promoting the idea that we now have 30 years in front of us in order to work scientifically so that we get ready when note by note cooking will be the main way of feeding people. I don't say that I have THE solution; I simply say that we have to work fast in order to be ready. And this calls for a lot of nutrition, toxicology, but also culinary work in order to be able to produce the needed dishes (I make a difference between a bunch of compounds and a dish, for many reasons, including questions of satiety and pleasure, but here I would be too long explaining).
I was thinking of the peach pie/tart you’ve mentioned in one of your lectures. You told us it was more sour (acidic) once was cooked. During that session I thought: maybe it was just perceived as more sour. Maybe before cooked its natural shape does not let our taste buds capture the acidic flavour or sensation, but once its cooked and the shape it’s changed or released your taste buds than can perceive the flavour. I’ve imagined the acid component being “trapped” in some structure which changes once cooked. In its natural form not anatomically suitable to our taste buds.
The time I was working with salt crystals and its different shapes and how salty we perceive a product depending on the salt crystal used.
Indeed I did not discuss peach by apricots. For sure, the issue of perceiving is important, but why would the perception so much changed ? This calls for interpreting the chemical and physical environment of the various acids in the fruit. And yes, perceived acidity is not the same as pH, as shows the experiment of drinking vinegar vs vinegar with a lot of sugar: whereas the pH does not change with the addition of sugar, there is certainly a difference in perception. But anyway I am smiling because this question about apricots is only one of the thousands of questions that I have... and I shall not spend too much on this one in particular, but I find it useful for the discussion of scientific strategy ;-).
For salt, yes, the various salts give various salt perceptions, but this is only when the crystals are present (and crunchiness or ions release is then to be considered); when the different crystals are put in solution, we did not observe any difference, when the chemical composition of the crystals are the same.
Neophobia is the human behavior of being cautious about new food. This is a quality, otherwise the human species would not be here today: we would have been poisoned by the consumption of plants (remember that nature is very dangerous, and we eat only the fruits and vegetables that we can eat, either because we are manipulated by plants, for dispersing their seeds, or because we domesticated some dangerous species).
I was thinking of the future and the use of Note by Note, and thought that, nutritionally, we could have a great gap between rich and pour when we separate components. We know a vitamin or phytochemical will be inevitably more expensive than a starch, cellulose or sugar.
Nowadays, we have more equality in this sense. When buying a vegetable or fruit, it comes as whole and everyone has access to it. It is, in a way, a more fair game.
This is really true : the compounds that makes up the majority of food ingredients (water, protides, glucides, lipids) are much more abundant than vitamins, for example, and this explain why they are cheaper. This is also part of the explanation of obesity in the world: when you eat too much fat and sugars, you gain weight and sick. And it is not a surprise that the poorest populations are the most obese in developed countries... But this last observation also shows that there is not much equality, even today.
My question is: what are the advantages of separating, at the farm, produce in its pure components besides increasing food creation possibilities? Why not just dry a whole carrot?
Indeed, forget about note by note cooking as a new art as a start, and let's start from facts :
1. we will have to feed 10 billion people in 2050, and the sole solution today is to fight spoilage. Why spoilage? In part because we consume fresh products: hence the idea to fractionate at the farm (by the way remember that the milk and wheat industries are already fractionating).
2. if we fractionate at the farm, we make the prices more level, and this is good for everybody, because if the efficiency of agriculture is increased, the price of products is not hampered by the price of spoilage.
3. imagine that someone would be able to pay for a fruit, why would he pay more for the fractions ?
Now, drying is very energy consuming, and membrane techniques are much more powerful. In France, il particular, they are already applied for making drinkable water as well as for milk fractionation.
Moreover, having the fractions of carrots (including vitamins and phytochemicals) has the advantage that :
- we would not transport water
- we would probably save energy for cooking
- we decide for the nutritional properties of food
- we decide for the toxicology of food (including managing questions of allergies).
We have quite a few studies and line of thoughts suggesting that highly processed food can be detrimental to our health.
One example from the book Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition, T. Colin Campbell
“Every apple contains thousands of antioxidants whose names, beyond a few like vitamin C, are unfamiliar to us, and each of these powerful chemicals has the potential to play an important role in supporting our health. They impact thousands upon thousands of metabolic reactions inside the human body. But calculating the specific influence of each of these chemicals isn’t nearly sufficient to explain the effect of the apple as a whole. Because almost every chemical can affect every other chemical, there is an almost infinite number of possible biological consequences.”
This question of transformed food being detrimental to health is not correctly managed in the public debate. For example, recently, there were articles about a certain (and bad) "Nova" categorization of food... but one forget to say that if you eat too much salt, sugar and fat, you get sick ! And remember that smoking is the worst... and main cause ! Drinking alcohol as well, is bad. And driving too fast. And, etc.
This is exactly the topic of my last book: bad faith! Because we all say that we want healthy food, but we forget that dietetics knows ONLY ONE rule: we have to eat of everything in small quantities, and make exercise. Do we apply this rule? No, certainly no... and this is why we are too fat, and sick.
I understand you classify process food/artificial food as any food that was, in some way, modified from its natural status. Example: boiled potato, scramble egg, etc. But when drying, coping (color or flavor compounds additions) and extracting pure components, we made those dishes much more artificial than boiling a potato.
Is it true ? For years, I tried to tackle this question without finding an answer. Consider a choucroute, for example: the cabbage was selected, cultivated, fermented, cooking for hours. The sausage was produced from meat that was destroyed, added with ingredients, processed... About spicy crab? The sauce seems to be important, and you know perfectly how it is made, with spices addition. Indeed I could not find an "index of naturality".
And to finish about the potato:
- the potato that we have today is the result of MANY selections, like apples are certainly not wild apples
- is boiling more or less "natural" (indeed we should say artificial) than frying ?
I am thinking of ingredients’ natural “chemical balance” or proportions and level of processes.
I don’t think, eating Note by Note, or highly process food once in a while will kill you, but if Note by Note is the future of food, how much are we looking into its health impact when consumed daily?
When you speak of "natural balance", may I tell you that you are going too far ? There is no proof that there is any balance at all ! And the proof was given by elementary nutritional studies: when you give meat stock only to dogs, they die. I remind you the sole rule in dietetics: we have to eat of everything in small quantities and make moderate exercise.
By the way, all compounds from fruits, vegetables, meat, fish, etc. are toxic at various levels. And this is why we have to vary, to change, otherwise we would get over the toxicity level. For example, one whole nutmeg would kill you; or basil, or tarragon, or the phenolics of grapes; or lycopene from carrots; or beta carotene from carrots...
This is why I am promoting the idea that we now have 30 years in front of us in order to work scientifically so that we get ready when note by note cooking will be the main way of feeding people. I don't say that I have THE solution; I simply say that we have to work fast in order to be ready. And this calls for a lot of nutrition, toxicology, but also culinary work in order to be able to produce the needed dishes (I make a difference between a bunch of compounds and a dish, for many reasons, including questions of satiety and pleasure, but here I would be too long explaining).
I was thinking of the peach pie/tart you’ve mentioned in one of your lectures. You told us it was more sour (acidic) once was cooked. During that session I thought: maybe it was just perceived as more sour. Maybe before cooked its natural shape does not let our taste buds capture the acidic flavour or sensation, but once its cooked and the shape it’s changed or released your taste buds than can perceive the flavour. I’ve imagined the acid component being “trapped” in some structure which changes once cooked. In its natural form not anatomically suitable to our taste buds.
The time I was working with salt crystals and its different shapes and how salty we perceive a product depending on the salt crystal used.
Indeed I did not discuss peach by apricots. For sure, the issue of perceiving is important, but why would the perception so much changed ? This calls for interpreting the chemical and physical environment of the various acids in the fruit. And yes, perceived acidity is not the same as pH, as shows the experiment of drinking vinegar vs vinegar with a lot of sugar: whereas the pH does not change with the addition of sugar, there is certainly a difference in perception. But anyway I am smiling because this question about apricots is only one of the thousands of questions that I have... and I shall not spend too much on this one in particular, but I find it useful for the discussion of scientific strategy ;-).
For salt, yes, the various salts give various salt perceptions, but this is only when the crystals are present (and crunchiness or ions release is then to be considered); when the different crystals are put in solution, we did not observe any difference, when the chemical composition of the crystals are the same.
dimanche 15 juillet 2018
Comment militer pour une cause juste quand on n'a pas la compétence pour établir publiquement que cette cause est juste ?
Ma récente décision de me focaliser sur mon domaine de compétence et de ne plus parler de toxicologie ou de nutrition, qui sont en dehors de ce domaine, me pose un problème important : il y a des causes que mes amis scientifiques compétents connaissent bien et à propos desquelles je leur fais confiance, d'une part parce que mes amis sont compétents, et d'autre part, parce que je sais que ces mêmes amis n'ont pas d'intérêts qui les conduiraient à prendre des positions opposées aux faits. Je cite en vrac la composition nutritionnelle des aliments bio, les dangers éventuels (j'insiste : éventuels) du glyphosate, les risques éventuels (j'insiste : éventuels) associés à la consommation de résidus de pesticides, la question des perturbateurs endocriniens, etc.
Quand un de ces amis, qui a fait une longue étude bibliographique, une longue étude d'expertise, me donne ses conclusions, et que ces dernières vont à l'encontre de rumeurs propagées par des individus dont je sais qu'ils sont malhonnêtes, qu'ils agissent par lucre ou par idéologie, même moi qui suis un peu en dehors du monde, j'ai envie de diffuser la bonne parole contre la mauvaise. Et cela me conduit à vouloir prendre parti.
De ce fait je suis mis en position de donner des avis sur des questions qui sont en dehors de ma compétence, ce qui pourrait me conduire à devoir justifier ces avis auprès de mes interlocuteurs. Je ne veux en aucun cas me déguiser en toxicologue ou en nutritionniste, moi qui ne cesse de répéter que, comme le disait les Jésuites, on ne soit pas se comporter en tant que chrétien mais en chrétien : ce qui, dans mon cas, signifie que je dois seulement me comporter en physico-chimiste qui connaît la structure chimique et physique des aliments, et leurs modifications lors des transformations culinaires.
L'analyse de la question apporte sa réponse : je pourrais commencer chaque diffusion d'information hors de mon domaine de compétence par une phrase telle que « Je suis incompétent dans ce domaine, mais j'ai confiance dans l'information suivante, qui me vient d'amis compétents et honnêtes ».
Car, quand même, contre les fanatismes, il y a absolument lieu d'émettre des voix audibles qui montreront à nos amis que le chant des sirènes est mortifères.
samedi 14 juillet 2018
La science ? Moi, je considère les sciences de la nature.
Ce matin, j'ai souri en voyant des commentaires sur mon billet consacré à la « vérité en science » : un « ami qui me lit » me fait observer que la question est différente pour les différentes sciences, telles que sciences de la nature, sciences de l'humain et de la société, sciences spirituelles, etc.
Tout d'abord, j'ai souri, donc, en voyant ces sciences spirituelles évoquées alors que je ne parle que de sciences de la nature, parce que, clairement, il ne s'agit pas d'activités du même type que celles que je considérais. Mon correspondant aurait d'ailleurs pu tout aussi bien parler de la science du cordonnier ou du maître d'hôtel, puisque ce sont là les titres de deux ouvrages que je possède.
Mais, à l'analyse, c'est moi qui suis fautif, et pas seulement moi, mais aussi tous mes collègues chimistes, physiciens, biologistes, etc. Pour nous, le mot « science » désigne exclusivement les sciences de la nature, et j'avais observé par le passé que cette appropriation du mot « science » pour nos sciences était indue, et que, en réalité, mon interlocuteur a raison.
C'est donc mon erreur personnelle qui a engendré sa réponse inappropriée, car je ne sais rien de la science du cordonnier, de la science du maître d'hôtel ou des sciences spirituelles ! Je ne peux donc absolument pas discuter la question de la vérité pour ces différentes sciences, et, même, je ne veux en aucun cas aller sur ce terrain où je suis incompétent. Surtout que, depuis deux jours, j'ai décidé de me focaliser sur mon terrain de compétence et de laisser aux autres la charge de faire leur propre exploration analytique. Je ne peux donc malheureusement pas répondre à mon interlocuteur, puisque je suis incompétent, mais je peux faire une chose : à savoir désormais ne plus utiliser le mot « science » tout seul, mais me corriger et exclusivement employer l'expression « science de la nature » quand il s'agit de cela. C'est un peu encombrant, mais je crois qu'il y a lieu de se perfectionner de ce point de vue, car je vois bien combien la confusion entre les diverses sciences engendre la confusion dans les dialogues avec nos amis.
Dont acte.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)