The author's investigation of the functionality of the knife pattern
they declaim rests on only the most superficial of inquiries. It is
hardly the most rigorous investigation of culinary science I've ever seen.
There are several objections that could be raised to this cursory
examination, but they are all secondary to the most basic: the conclusion
was foredrawn, and they interpreted the responses to fit what they wanted
to demonstrate.
"None gave a reason why the long pointed knife was essential," could
be more-honestly written: "None gave a reason that we thought demonstrated
a use where only a long pointed knife was functional." As for the
Harrison-Fisher knife company's "admission", what else are they going to
say? Of course chef's knives follow a traditional pattern - they are
traditional because they work.
The mystery chefs interviewed by the authors seemingly never had to
carve a turkey, debone or filet a large fish, joint meat, or field-strip
large game. I have likely omitted an ever-lengthening list of culinary
uses for a large, pointed knife. Either uses where such a knife is
essential, or just very useful.
Even chopping veggies is easier with what is commonly called a chef's
knife -- you can't get that quick, repetitive motion with a paring knife.
Sure, you could substitute the chef's knife with four or five other tools
to duplicate its functionality, but why?
This is "science" only in the sense that the creationists who
testified for the Kansas School Board are scientists. Science uses theory
to guide investigations, not to pre-ordain the results of one.
The hypothesis seems to be that if knives were eliminated, then
stabbings would go down. Perhaps, but given the infinite inventiveness of
humans in the arena of causing bodily harm, I seriously doubt that
interpersonal trauma would decline. The end result is that one profession
(cooks and chefs) is greatly inconvenienced at the behest of another (ER
surgeons), yet the second doesn't truly derive any benefit (as they
frantically treat blunt-force trauma instead).
Rapid Response:
Shaky hypothesis, poor analysis
The author's investigation of the functionality of the knife pattern
they declaim rests on only the most superficial of inquiries. It is
hardly the most rigorous investigation of culinary science I've ever seen.
There are several objections that could be raised to this cursory
examination, but they are all secondary to the most basic: the conclusion
was foredrawn, and they interpreted the responses to fit what they wanted
to demonstrate.
"None gave a reason why the long pointed knife was essential," could
be more-honestly written: "None gave a reason that we thought demonstrated
a use where only a long pointed knife was functional." As for the
Harrison-Fisher knife company's "admission", what else are they going to
say? Of course chef's knives follow a traditional pattern - they are
traditional because they work.
The mystery chefs interviewed by the authors seemingly never had to
carve a turkey, debone or filet a large fish, joint meat, or field-strip
large game. I have likely omitted an ever-lengthening list of culinary
uses for a large, pointed knife. Either uses where such a knife is
essential, or just very useful.
Even chopping veggies is easier with what is commonly called a chef's
knife -- you can't get that quick, repetitive motion with a paring knife.
Sure, you could substitute the chef's knife with four or five other tools
to duplicate its functionality, but why?
This is "science" only in the sense that the creationists who
testified for the Kansas School Board are scientists. Science uses theory
to guide investigations, not to pre-ordain the results of one.
The hypothesis seems to be that if knives were eliminated, then
stabbings would go down. Perhaps, but given the infinite inventiveness of
humans in the arena of causing bodily harm, I seriously doubt that
interpersonal trauma would decline. The end result is that one profession
(cooks and chefs) is greatly inconvenienced at the behest of another (ER
surgeons), yet the second doesn't truly derive any benefit (as they
frantically treat blunt-force trauma instead).
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests