POSTSCRIPT

How to Be a Smarter Geek

USING MODELS TO DESCRIBE HOW THE WORLD WORKS IS FASCINATING. This is why so many geeks are drawn to technical disciplines like science and software, which build models to predict outcomes. But there is a difference between models and the world they describe. Applying models without understanding this basic fact leads to errors, and those errors can get you into trouble. Making an argument based on “scientific proof” misses fundamental aspects of the scientific process: models describe precise things, models have errors, and the scientific process is about recognizing those errors and finding better models.

Much of the media is especially guilty of reporting on scientific models without understanding how they work. Economist Paul Krugman once joked about how the media would cover a statement about the sky being green: “Some say the sky is green; others disagree.” We see this in other areas—climate change is undeniable, but there are still research papers that don’t support it. And I see the same issue in food and food science. Food chemistry is an incredibly complicated area, made more confusing by companies seeking a profit, and so the way the general public views it is often at odds with how scientists understand it. The challenge for me is in separating the facts from the opinions.

So how can a smart geek understand and navigate a topic as seemingly simple as cooking? Start by realizing that any model you have about how food works—nutritionally, culinarily, hedonistically—has inaccuracies. Check any assumptions (“show me the data”) and red-flag any claims that sound too good to be true. Be skeptical of the things that you hear, understanding that the speaker’s incentives aren’t always aligned with your own. Beyond that, learn how to dig through documents and identify properly researched work. Here, in order of most preferred to least preferred, are the resources I find useful:

Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com)

This is a specialized search engine that indexes academic research and patents. While most of the papers are behind paywalls, the abstracts are freely available and often answer the question at hand. Look for affiliations with well-known accredited institutions. Give preference to metastudies (papers that aggregate findings from many prior published papers); one paper does not prove a point. Patents are also a great source of information—the background section is written in clear language and often easy to understand. While a patent is not peer-reviewed, there is a huge economic incentive for the document producer to get it as correct as possible. Besides, peer reviews are not a guarantee of quality. Science journalist John Bohannon tested this by submitting slight variations of an intentionally flawed paper to a few hundred open-access, peer-reviewed journals. More than half accepted it for publication. There are a lot of sham peer-reviewed journals out there, aiming to make a buck by publishing (for a modest fee) papers that in turn give lower-rung academics another few lines in their CVs.

Searching Google Scholar can be daunting at first, especially because of the technical language—search with the word sucrose instead of sugar, for example—but it’s the best way to unearth proper source material. If you find a citation or patent that’s related to your question but not conclusive, look through “cited by” and “referenced by.”

Google Books (http://books.google.com)

This is another specialized index, in this case one that searches through printed books and magazines. The material indexed in Google Books does not have the same level of rigor as that in Google Scholar, but I find that the content is of better quality than the general online echo chamber (although, alas, there are not as many images of adorable dogs and cats).

When working with Google Books, pay attention to publication dates. I’ve had results from the early 1900s mixed in with more modern books; I stick to those printed after 1970, and ideally after 2000. That said, sadly, I’ve found the quality of very recently published material to be low; the main exceptions are “Handbook of X”–type books, which are technical publications covering specific topics.

General search engines

These can be really spotty. It wasn’t always so—I’m an Internet geezer, being old enough to remember when the first full-text search engine, AltaVista, debuted—but as content mills have refined their web content for maximum ad revenue, the results of a general online search are now an echo chamber when it comes to science. This is a serious problem. Consider one of my favorite headlines: “Scientific proof that a bacon sandwich is the best cure for a hangover revealed.” Elin Roberts, the UK-based science communicator quoted in the article, did nothing wrong (and everything right), but one newspaper after another requoted her original statement, coming up with ridiculous titles along the way. At some point the echo chamber also granted her a PhD and changed her title to Chemistry Researcher at Newcastle University. Even journalists can make great leaps in science when bacon is involved!

The kitchen

There’s no substitute for trying things out yourself. The theoretical aspects may be correct in isolation, but in practice, in your kitchen, lots of other stuff is going on. Be careful not to extrapolate backward, though. You may read research papers that reveal marked differences in how an ingredient performs based on something like humidity but not see the change when testing in your kitchen. That doesn’t mean that the research is incorrect! Cooking is a complex system; you may think you’re changing only one variable but may in fact be changing multiple.

Whatever your reasons for learning to cook—health, financial, social, empowerment, creativity—cooking should be fun. I hope this book has shown you ways to bring playfulness to food, both inside and outside the kitchen, and a new way to view science. For new cooks, I hope that the unknowns in cooking have been replaced with an understanding of the basics. For experienced cooks, I hope that the science behind cooking has brought you fascinating insights and sparked new ideas.

See my tips on page 440 for how I’d summarize the lessons in this book. A final science reminder for culinary success: it’s the physical and chemical reactions that happen in food that matter; the heat of your oven or frying pan is only indirectly involved. Think about how temperature- and chemistry-related reactions occur, and either trigger them (mmm, golden-brown oatmeal cookies!) or avoid them. When cooking for others, remember to pay attention to presentation and expectations too.

If you have questions or comments, please reach out to me: visit either http://www.cookingforgeeks.com or http://www.jeffpotter.org and let me know your thoughts.