Molecular Gastronomy & Procrustean Beds I look forward to seeing you expand your argument, giving specifics from cognitive science and connectionism. I love the way you’ve chosen something completely left-field, like culinary science, to illustrate the underlying dynamics of a social movement, and point up the absurdity of its underpinnings. Having said that, I do have to disagree with your statement that science no longer has to say much about cooking. For example, check out this link: http://discovermagazine.com/2006/feb/cooking-for-eggheads This so called “molecular cuisine” seems to be a legitimate discipline, as it uses what we know about physics to improve the texture, taste, and predictability of kitchen outcomes. It’s not blandly reductionistic, but is a tool for improvisation - though I still prefer just throwing stuff in a pan and using the old “trial & error” to see how it comes out. “Molecular gastronomy” has an entry in Wikipedia, so it “must” be real - right? ;) Modern science actually has quite a lot to say about nutrition. In addition to calories, proteins, carbohydrates, and vitamins, you’ve got soluble and insoluble fiber (those good old fruits and vegetables, and your whole grains). Perhaps most importantly, you’ve got glycemic load (the speed at which different foods increase your blood sugar. Even the pH of foods turns out to be important: For people whose intestinal microbiome has been compromised by overuse of antibiotics, low pH foods can be disastrous because they let yeast expand dramatically and choke out the helpful bacteria. If you’re developing these ideas for a book, you’ll want to incorporate these new findings, and clarify your argument in regard to the old “home ec” curriculum. It’s not that “culinary science” doesn’t exist - your argument seems to be more along the lines that “rationality” is a completely nonscientific believe system, that tries to cloak itself in the guise of “science” to influence social outcomes and control academic curriculums. In your essay about domestic science, you portray it as a kind of Procrustean bed that ignored all the data outside its agenda, and stretched the available data to fit - and this is obviously not what “science” is about. I hope you’ll forgive me for kibitzing. I think you’ve got the bones here for a really great chapter, and I’d love to see how you develop it in terms of cognitive science vs connectionism (fields I know a lot less about). Thanks for another great post. I agree that “rationality” (as opposed to true experimental science) is responsible for much of what is twisted in society and our personal lives. I certainly was warped at an early age by rationalists, and I think I’m still recovering!