First of all, apologies for, and a word of explanation about, the unbelievably pretentious title : it was, of course, written very much tongue-in-cheek, but is in fact almost a exact copy (modulo the last two words) of the title of the first ever scientific paper I was invited to read, written by a good friend with whom I shared an office (and who had better remain nameless, but he will recognise himself if ever he reads this).
Anyhow, what is this pretentious nonsense all about ? Well, as those of you who have been following the "
Curry made from curry powder" thread, Cory Ander has raised the issue of what exactly we mean by "technique". Is it something that we each have to acquire for ourselves, or is it something that can easily be communicated through the written word, in forums such as this ? My gut instinct is that it is a little of each -- we can attempt to communicate it, but unless others try it for themselves and the vast majority report that it results in a discernible improvement, then we are probably either mistaken in our beliefs or we are communicating our technique poorly.
So what I want to propose is that we do something in the way of the existing
CR Group Tests, but much simplified (which will also have the benefit of making them far less onerous). My idea is as follows. Suppose (for example) we want to test the validity of the assertion that warming the base before adding it to the curry makes a discernible improvement in the quality (if it is not discernible, then it is almost certainly not worthwhile). So for this test, each participant will prepare two portions at the same time : one portion using cold base, one warmed to the point of a gentle simmer. Ideally, this test will be done where there are two or more people who can assess the results. All present should try each dish in turn, perhaps alternating between them, until either they are sure they can detect a difference, or they are sure that they cannot -- either outcome is equally satisfactory. If this can be done "blind" (i.e., without knowing which dish is which), so much the better, but we don't need to go overboard about this : we are talking cookery, not pharmacology, here. And, also ideally, about half of each portion is put away in the 'fridge, and the test repeated the next night. Finally the results are sent in, and someone (I will volunteer if the idea is sufficiently popular for it to take off) does a statistical analysis and reports back on the outcome. And, a few weeks later, we test a different hypothesis in the same manner, making exactly one change between the way the two portions are prepared.
What do you think, chaps : ridiculously pretentious, and a complete waste of time, or something from which we might all learn something useful ?
** Phil.