Il y a des questions lancinantes, surtout depuis que les scientifiques sont évalués au nombre d'articles qu'ils publient et que certains (peu, heureusement) publient à toute vitesse, presque n'importe quoi, ce qui s'ajoute aux mauvais articles du passé, dus à des scientifiques médiocres (il y en a de bons, heureusement) : comment reconnaître un bon article, et que faire d'un mauvais article ?
Il faut dire que la communauté scientifique est consciente du problème, et la question est explicitement posée dans des réunions scientifiques ou pédagogiques. Oui, le système d'évaluation par les pairs commence à être débordé, notamment depuis que des pays comme la Chine ont ouvert leurs frontières, submergeant les revues, les comités de lecture, les rapporteurs potentiels ; et c'est sans doute la brèche dans laquelle se sont engouffrées les revues "open", qui publient contre finances des textes que les auteurs ne parviennent pas à publier dans de bonnes revues. En corollaire, ce fléau pèse sur aussi les scientifiques qui font leurs recherches bibliographiques et doivent être particulièrement vigilant, quant à l'origine des données qu'ils conservent et utilisent.
Comment reconnaître un mauvais article ? Il y a des signes qui ne trompent pas. Par exemple :
- dès le début de l'article, des affirmations sans référence,
- ou encore des informations vagues (depuis longtemps, un certain nombre...),
- des adjectifs ou des adverbes au lieu d'utiles quantifications
- "essentiel" ou "important" : fuyons ces arguments d'autorité...
- des informations accessoires, qui ne seront pas utilisées dans la discussion scientifique, ou qui sont de la simple culture générale : ce n'est pas le lieu !
- des nombres avec des chiffres qui ne sont manifestement pas significatifs : cela, c'est plus grave, parce que si nos auteurs font des comparaisons, elles seront vraisemblablement nulles et non avenues, alors même qu'elles sembleront "établies". Et le plus grave, c 'est que l'article, s'il a été publié, a donc été mal édité, par des éditeurs et des rapporteurs également médiocres, pour ne pas dire plus
- puis, dans les "Matériels et Méthodes", il y a tout une série de fautes possibles, qui vont de l'imprécision dans les descriptions
- à la non justification des méthodes mises en oeuvre
- ou de méthodes qui n'ont pas été validées
- et, dans les résultats, la confusion entre les résultats et leur interprétation
- la publication de données sans évaluation d'une incertitude
- et des conclusions qui vont au delà de ce qui a été établi
Je m'arrête ici, parce que la liste est longue, et mériterait une collaboration de la communauté, afin d'aider les jeunes scientifiques à éviter ces erreurs.
Passons donc à la seconde question, qui est de savoir quoi faire des informations publiées dans un article qui a été reconnu mauvais ?
Par exemple, si les chiffres significatifs ne sont pas bien gérés, alors les comparaisons qui auront été faites d'après ces chiffres n'ont pas lieu d'être. Dans un tel cas, la marche à suivre est donc simple : on peut rien retenir des interprétations. Mais on pourrait aussi imaginer de refaire les calculs, à partir des valeurs ramenées à leur affichage correct, et, d'ailleurs, rendre service à la communauté en publiant un erratum... qui nous vaudra de nous brouiller avec l'équipe qui a publié les résultats initiaux.
Cela suppose évidemment que les données soient justes, à défaut d'être correctement affichées ! Et là se pose la question des "Matériels et méthodes" : je milite pour que cette partie soit toujours avant les résultats, car pourquoi perdre son temps à considérer des résultats qui pourraient être nuls, en raison d'une mauvaise méthode ?
Finalement, je ne vois pas de règle générale à appliquer, pour répondre à cette seconde question, et je compte sur mes amis pour m'aider à en élaborer une.
samedi 10 novembre 2018
Une plaque opaque ?
Ce matin, on m'invite à réfléchir à la production d'une "mince plaque de sucre opaque à la manière d’une fine meringue italienne séchée".
Et mon interlocuteur pense cuire un mélange de sucre, de glucose et d'eau jusqu’à 155 degrés. Ce mélange peut-il devenir opaque si on foisonne jusqu’à refroidissement complet ? Il serait réduit en poudre, puis passé au tamis avant d'être mis pendant quelques secondes au four pour le faire fondre.
Ce que je peux assurer, c'est qu'un mélange de sucre et de glucose chauffé jusqu'à 155 °C va peu brunir, tandis qu'il sera transformé en "péligot" (l'analogue d'un caramel, mais avec un autre sucre que le sucre de table, ou saccharose).
Puis, quand on aura refroidi, on aura une masse cassante, que l'on peut effectivement mettre en poudre. Si l'on étale cette poudre (dans le trou circulaire d'une feuille) sur un silpat ou une feuille de cuisson et qu'on la passe au four, on obtient un disque mince et cassant, que certains nomment "opaline".
Mais il sera peu coloré... et donc translucide, plutôt qu'opaque ! Pour faire de l'opacité, il faut sans doute disperser des particules solides. Par exemple du dioxyde de titane, puisque c'est un colorant blanc autorisé pour les colorations de surface... mais avez vous essayé la coquille d'oeuf lavée, puis broyée au mortier et pilon très finement ?
samedi 3 novembre 2018
Une conférence sur la cuisine note à note lors du concours cuisine des grandes écoles, le 24 novembre 2018
Heureux de vous annoncer ques élèves d'AgroParisTech organisent le 24 novembre le Concours cuisine des grandes écoles.
En marge des épreuves, quelques conférences :
Tout cela se passe au Centre Ferrandi, 28 bis rue de l'abbé Grégoire, 75006 Paris.
En marge des épreuves, quelques conférences :
Tout cela se passe au Centre Ferrandi, 28 bis rue de l'abbé Grégoire, 75006 Paris.
More questions, more answers about molecular gastronomy and note by note cooking
This morning, I should not answer, because indeed the answers are already given, but I found new ways of answering.
The questions are in italics.
What does molecular gastronomy mean to you as a scientist, or as a chef if you cook?
Molecular gastronomy should mean someone to me in particular. It means the same for everybody: the scientific discipline looking for the mechanisms of phenomena occurring during culinary processes. Nothing else.
The question is as strange as if I was asked: what does a cat mean for you, as a scientist, or as a chef if you cook.
And by the way, even when I cook (daily, at home, for all evening dinners plus meals of the week ends), I am not a chef, but I remain a scientist, and a scientist that cooks. The same when I am walking: I remain a scientist, and a scientist that walks.
How was your relationship with Nicholas Kurti( Kürti Miklós)?
It was a "love affair", immediate friendship that began as soon as we spoke on the phone, in 1986. After some seconds, he decided to come to Paris and see me, and we had this wonderful meal together, when we shared a "poule au vin jaune et aux morilles", at Maitre Paul, rue Racine, in the Quartier Latin of Paris. Immediately, we decided that we could share our results, thoughts, experiments... He was 50 years older than me, but we behaved as friends, and he was certainly not my tutor. Only a friend.
We shared everything: when I was invited as honoris causa in a university, I asked him to be along, and when he was proposed to write a text, we did it both (generally, I was writing the first draft, and he was improving it).
We did everything in a wonderful harmony, experiments on soufflés, on vinegar, organizing the Erice workshops... We spoke on the phone daily, and when I was making an experiment in Paris, he repeated it in London. He was a very good physicist, and I learned a lot from him in this regard, whereas he got much from me in chemistry, of which he did not know much.
I am not sure I understood this that’s why I am asking it.
Yes, but you make a load on me. Please read more carefully and use Google translate (or another one), because the explanations are clearly given.
So is Note by Note for example when you deconstruct two material to their chemical structure and then construct it with another material with the same structure?
Note by note does not mean deconstructing two materials to their chemical structure ! Indeed the sentence has no meaning: what is the "chemical structure, for example? And note by note cooking does not deconstruct. It means building a dish from pure compounds (let's say "chemical species" if you prefer). And what you build does not have the same chemical composition or chemical structure as... As what, by the way?
Or how is this going? I have read that for example the garlic and the coffee has the same structure so they can be combined to invent a new dish?
By structure, you perhaps mean "composition". And no, garlic does not have the same chemical composition as coffee... otherwise they would be the same ! Please, also avoid the "I have read", and give precise references. By the way, only have good readings (can you recognize them?).
Finally, what you probably read is that coffee and garlic have one or more compounds in common, so that they would "pair". But this is a bad theory, that has nothing scientific as cooking is art, not a question of science.
I am sorry If I misunderstood this whole thing, it is a little hard for me to learn and write about such a hard theme in not my mother language.
Sorry for you, but I cannot help in this regard.
Can I do fruit caviars from agar-agar? Or is it just like gelatine but the vegetable matter of it?
You probably means "alginate pearls" with a liquid core, and for this, you need... sodium alginate. But it's true that I showed decades ago how to make it with gelatin: my solution is displayed on the internet site of Pierre Gagnaire. And I guess that I could also find a solution with agar-agar.
How can we invent totally new dishes with Note by Note?
Look at any recipe of the International Contest, or read my book Note by Note Cooking, at Columbia University Press.
Do you think that molecular gastronomy will be the future or not because it needs some hardly available items for it, or like liquid nitrogen. So will it be available in a normal kitchen or just for the best Restaurants?
You confuse molecular gastronomy (science) and note by note cooking. Molecular gastronomy is spreading in universities all over the world. And note by note is spreading in restaurants of all the world. But there are many answers about this elsewhere.
And note by note cooking will be able to used more and more common ingredients (remember this word: just as carrot and meat are ingredients of traditional cooking, pure compounds are the ingredients of note by note cooking).
Do you teach molecular gastronomy?
Yes, in a lot of contexts.
- in the Erasmus Mundus Plus Master Programme "Food Innovation and Product Design"
- in the IPP Master Programme of AgroParisTech
- at the Ecoles des Mines de Paris
- at AgroParisTech, in the context of the Courses of Molecular Gastronomy
- and others
The questions are in italics.
What does molecular gastronomy mean to you as a scientist, or as a chef if you cook?
Molecular gastronomy should mean someone to me in particular. It means the same for everybody: the scientific discipline looking for the mechanisms of phenomena occurring during culinary processes. Nothing else.
The question is as strange as if I was asked: what does a cat mean for you, as a scientist, or as a chef if you cook.
And by the way, even when I cook (daily, at home, for all evening dinners plus meals of the week ends), I am not a chef, but I remain a scientist, and a scientist that cooks. The same when I am walking: I remain a scientist, and a scientist that walks.
How was your relationship with Nicholas Kurti( Kürti Miklós)?
It was a "love affair", immediate friendship that began as soon as we spoke on the phone, in 1986. After some seconds, he decided to come to Paris and see me, and we had this wonderful meal together, when we shared a "poule au vin jaune et aux morilles", at Maitre Paul, rue Racine, in the Quartier Latin of Paris. Immediately, we decided that we could share our results, thoughts, experiments... He was 50 years older than me, but we behaved as friends, and he was certainly not my tutor. Only a friend.
We shared everything: when I was invited as honoris causa in a university, I asked him to be along, and when he was proposed to write a text, we did it both (generally, I was writing the first draft, and he was improving it).
We did everything in a wonderful harmony, experiments on soufflés, on vinegar, organizing the Erice workshops... We spoke on the phone daily, and when I was making an experiment in Paris, he repeated it in London. He was a very good physicist, and I learned a lot from him in this regard, whereas he got much from me in chemistry, of which he did not know much.
I am not sure I understood this that’s why I am asking it.
Yes, but you make a load on me. Please read more carefully and use Google translate (or another one), because the explanations are clearly given.
So is Note by Note for example when you deconstruct two material to their chemical structure and then construct it with another material with the same structure?
Note by note does not mean deconstructing two materials to their chemical structure ! Indeed the sentence has no meaning: what is the "chemical structure, for example? And note by note cooking does not deconstruct. It means building a dish from pure compounds (let's say "chemical species" if you prefer). And what you build does not have the same chemical composition or chemical structure as... As what, by the way?
Or how is this going? I have read that for example the garlic and the coffee has the same structure so they can be combined to invent a new dish?
By structure, you perhaps mean "composition". And no, garlic does not have the same chemical composition as coffee... otherwise they would be the same ! Please, also avoid the "I have read", and give precise references. By the way, only have good readings (can you recognize them?).
Finally, what you probably read is that coffee and garlic have one or more compounds in common, so that they would "pair". But this is a bad theory, that has nothing scientific as cooking is art, not a question of science.
I am sorry If I misunderstood this whole thing, it is a little hard for me to learn and write about such a hard theme in not my mother language.
Sorry for you, but I cannot help in this regard.
Can I do fruit caviars from agar-agar? Or is it just like gelatine but the vegetable matter of it?
You probably means "alginate pearls" with a liquid core, and for this, you need... sodium alginate. But it's true that I showed decades ago how to make it with gelatin: my solution is displayed on the internet site of Pierre Gagnaire. And I guess that I could also find a solution with agar-agar.
How can we invent totally new dishes with Note by Note?
Look at any recipe of the International Contest, or read my book Note by Note Cooking, at Columbia University Press.
Do you think that molecular gastronomy will be the future or not because it needs some hardly available items for it, or like liquid nitrogen. So will it be available in a normal kitchen or just for the best Restaurants?
You confuse molecular gastronomy (science) and note by note cooking. Molecular gastronomy is spreading in universities all over the world. And note by note is spreading in restaurants of all the world. But there are many answers about this elsewhere.
And note by note cooking will be able to used more and more common ingredients (remember this word: just as carrot and meat are ingredients of traditional cooking, pure compounds are the ingredients of note by note cooking).
Do you teach molecular gastronomy?
Yes, in a lot of contexts.
- in the Erasmus Mundus Plus Master Programme "Food Innovation and Product Design"
- in the IPP Master Programme of AgroParisTech
- at the Ecoles des Mines de Paris
- at AgroParisTech, in the context of the Courses of Molecular Gastronomy
- and others
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)