Another fine article by Asimov

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
Wikipedia:
Click to expand...
Why stop there? It gets better:

Umami clearly enhances the palatability of soups and a wide variety of foods that are not sweet. Fruits, fruit juices and some dairy products do not match well with umami taste (for review Beauchamp, 2009).[10]
 
In normal, non-geek, usage, I would say that savory and sweet are opposite categories for foods but not in the manner of oppositional terms. In other words, the opposite of sweet as a taste is sour. But if one asks whether one prefers sweet or savory for breakfast, savory might include eggs, bacon, bagels or, for that matter, left-over pizza, and yet one would understand the opposition in the question.

The problem we are having here I think is that Asimov is taking advantage of the definitional ambiguity to slip in evaluative preferences in ways that make his categories fun for us to talk about but not very useful.
 
originally posted by VS:I love how this bored splits hairs...
Click to expand...
And so you should. Today the hair, tomorrow the atom! I am intrinsically in favour of the two-point scale. (That is what will get us there.) The Dressner ripe-unripe scale seems generally useful. Coad's (re-)buy/don't is powerful and compelling if somewhat complicated by economics. But sweet-savoury is not intuitive. Aside from the problem that it seems to want immediately to expand to a five-point, or rather a five-dimension scaling system, who agrees on the meaning of "savoury"? Apart from disordered wine geeks, I mean. Neither the man nor the woman on the street - may they live in comfort amid plenty - I suspect.

So, I would agree : this is not Asimov's finest work. My feeling has been, given the position he holds with an important publication, he should consider the prong system.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
In normal, non-geek, usage, I would say that savory and sweet are opposite categories for foods but not in the manner of oppositional terms. In other words, the opposite of sweet as a taste is sour. But if one asks whether one prefers sweet or savory for breakfast, savory might include eggs, bacon, bagels or, for that matter, left-over pizza, and yet one would understand the opposition in the question.

The problem we are having here I think is that Asimov is taking advantage of the definitional ambiguity to slip in evaluative preferences in ways that make his categories fun for us to talk about but not very useful.
Click to expand...

I think this just about nails it.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
In normal, non-geek, usage, I would say that savory and sweet are opposite categories for foods but not in the manner of oppositional terms. In other words, the opposite of sweet as a taste is sour. But if one asks whether one prefers sweet or savory for breakfast, savory might include eggs, bacon, bagels or, for that matter, left-over pizza, and yet one would understand the opposition in the question.

The problem we are having here I think is that Asimov is taking advantage of the definitional ambiguity to slip in evaluative preferences in ways that make his categories fun for us to talk about but not very useful.
Click to expand...

I think this just about nails it.
Click to expand...
Cinnamon raisin bagels are not savory.
 
originally posted by Jeff Connell:
originally posted by VS:I love how this bored splits hairs...
Click to expand...
And so you should. Today the hair, tomorrow the atom! I am intrinsically in favour of the two-point scale. (That is what will get us there.) The Dressner ripe-unripe scale seems generally useful. Coad's (re-)buy/don't is powerful and compelling if somewhat complicated by economics. But sweet-savoury is not intuitive. Aside from the problem that it seems to want immediately to expand to a five-point, or rather a five-dimension scaling system, who agrees on the meaning of "savoury"? Apart from disordered wine geeks, I mean. Neither the man nor the woman on the street - may they live in comfort amid plenty - I suspect.

So, I would agree : this is not Asimov's finest work. My feeling has been, given the position he holds with an important publication, he should consider the prong system.
Click to expand...

Pace Oswaldo, I think Jeff nails it. Thanks, Jeff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top