Science idiots

I have been enjoying Prof Brian Cox's history of science in Britain, complete with some very satisfactory explosions, and his simple explanations of why the lot of the scientist has ever been distrust and ridicule. This very evening, he explained what a scientific "theory" is. It's not a wild stab in the dark, it's a peer-reviewed truth that may be supplanted by a later, better truth. What's important, though, is that the original theory will still be true. (I knew this already, having lectured scientists at Imperial College, and no, I'm not going to stop milking that particular cow - ever.)

 

Coincidentally, the programme aired on the day when scientists from across the globe reported on climate change and put forward the peer-reviewed theory that man-made activity is responsible for such change. In other words, there is no other explanation that will fit the gradual warming of our planet, the rise in sea levels and the extremes of weather that are happening around the world.

 

Now, for most people, this doesn't matter much. Barring those whose roof has blown off in a hurricane, of course. Most of us live a fair way above sea levels. It's going to worry the people in the Maldives a heck of a lot, though, given that their islands rise about two inches above the Indian Ocean. It'll worry people in Southern Pakistan, too - a region that actually submerges during parts of the rainy season.

 

What angers me is exactly what Prof Cox is trying to combat - the wilful ignorance of "most people". The people who smugly say, "Well, scientists don't know everything" - (recommended answer, after you've bounced their head off the bar counter - "Well, they know a fuxsake more than you do. In particular, they'll be able to tell you whether that's an epidural or a subdural haematoma.") The people who say "If there's such a thing as evolution, why don't we see more apes turning into humans?", or "The earth has always warmed and cooled, I mean there was an Ice Age. I read this book by some American academic who had a degree in truthology where he showed that global warming is bunk, and that last year's summer was colder than the year before."

 

There are people who refuse medical treatment for illness, and they call themselves Christian Scientists. They'll produce all kinds of arguments that a special form of prayer will cure any disease, but what they won't produce is evidence that can be tested a hundred times over and give the same, exact, result every time. There are parents who refuse the MMR vaccine because they've "heard" that it can cause autism, yet when they're told that this erroneous idea came from a paper by an ambitious doctor who later admitted that he made up the results of his study just to get published, and that all proper academic studies show that the MMR vaccine lowers infant death rates dramatically - still refuse the vaccine, "just in case". There are schools that teach "Intelligent Design" rather than evolution, and whose students who want to be doctors or biologists get a nasty shock when they are not admitted to further education - where real scientists lecture.

 

I suspect that Prof Cox is fighting a losing battle, the "s'common sense, innit?" crowd will drown us in their lowest-denominator, simplistic, uneducated, anti-education arguments, sponsored by KFC.

 

And as if to prove it, when I turned to another channel, there was an advert for a steam cleaner with a voice-over from a smug woman, boasting that "In our house, there are no chemicals..." Really? Because I counted a hydrogen atom bonded to two oxygen atoms in that steam. I'll take an each-way bet on a carbon atom bonded to two oxygen atoms, as long as you're breathing, dear. Mind, in the mood I'm in, I can remove that pollution. With an axe, probably. Oh, and assuming your house is on planet Earth, there's going to be a shitload of nitrogen.

 

Mao Zedong herded people into compulsory re-education camps during the Cultural Revolution, and has been criticised for doing so. Tonight, though, I have some sympathy with the old feller. Stupid people should be helped. Those who deliberately seek stupidity should be hit with sticks and sent to work in the rice-fields, because they are of no value to society beyond incoherently shouting on the stage of the Jeremy Kyle show, for the entertainment of other sofa-bound Zeppelins.

 

Me, I'm with the scientists. And I have chemicals in my house.

Making soup for idiots

(Originally written 14/11/2012)

I am invariably behind the times, so this will probably not be news to anyone, but I watched a remarkable advert on TV this afternoon. Apparently, it is now possible to buy a soup maker. Not, as one might think, an aged retainer bringing decades of soup-making experience with them, capable of turning out crystal-clear consommes, hearty broths, warming bouillons, fishy bisques, velvety veloutes, or a chilly gazpacho - but an electrical device. According to the makers, one simply puts the ingredients into what looks like a hastily-converted juicer, applies power, and fifteen minutes later soup virtually erupts from it. Smiling children eat the resulting gloop, joyfully exclaiming "Crikey - it's vegetables... but in soup form! Hooray for broccoli!" I may have made the last bit up, but that's the inference I took from it.

This marvellous new invention, freeing soup fans from can-opening misery, retails at the low, low price of fifty smackers - and I could weep at missing the opportunity to sell a useless gadget to twits, or goofs who don't know what to buy for a wedding present.

Why useless? Well, firstly because it won't make quite a lot of soups, and secondly because it costs many times more than the equipment chefs use to make soup. Let me explain.

This incredibly useless device consists of a heating element, a blender and a jug. If you wish to make vegetable soup, this is fine. Chuck the veg in, the element browns and softens them, some signalling affair sounds ("Oy, soup for brains!" would be my suggestion) to alert the user to add the liquid of their choice, the proto-soup is brought to the boil, then the blender goes to work. Finally, with a burble of "Soup up!", it switches itself off and smiling children cheer. Again, I may have made the last bit up, but you get my drift. So far, so good.

It all starts going a bit wrong, though, if you wish to make chicken soup. Chicken soup is made from roasted chicken bones, with any meat added towards the end of the cooking process. Chicken soup is emphatically not made by putting chicken bones through a blender. Soup-eaters will notice, I promise you.

The same goes for lobster bisque. It is made from lobster shells, with any actual lobster added very late, almost as a garnish. Virtually every shellfish soup is made with shells. As for wonderful French fish soup... let's just say that like law and sausages, that's something you don't want to see made. It's fish heads, bones, tails and any other trimmings you can get hold of. Beef consomme recipes usually recommend adding eggshells. Oh, and beef soups are usually made from roasted beef bones, which tend to defeat the most determined blender. Put it this way, cram a roasted beef's pelvis in one of these soup makers, and what you'll serve up is stainless steel shard soup with essence of heating element.

You could claim that you got the recipe from Heston Blumenthal, but you're still going to get quite a lot of Hard Stares from the Coroner.

The soups above are made by boiling/simmering the ingredients, then putting them through a strainer to remove the inedible bits. "Mr Soup" has no strainer, the blender gets to work on whatever is in the jug. It also has nothing like the capacity required for the fish heads, the beef bones, nor the very many lobster shells needed to produce enough bisque for a decent serving.

So, it won't make anything more than veg soup with added finely-chopped or pre-cooked meat. As I wrote above, it also costs much more than the dedicated soup maniac needs to spend. I shall prove this by means of a generic veg soup recipe:

1) Take some veg. The amount is up to you, but one sprout isn't going to cut it, frankly.

2) Cook the veg in a saucepan. You already have a saucepan, you do not need to buy a special soup-making saucepan, despite what BabbaCo Industries may recommend.

3) If "cooking" the veg involves boiling it in water, boil it in stock instead. Otherwise, fry/grill/roast until soft, then put it in any old saucepan and add as much vegetable stock as you will require for the finished soup. You might want to shove in a few herbs. Almost any will work, but candied angelica may be considered too adventurous.

4) Buy a stick blender. Argos sell them for £4.49. Plug it in and give the veg/stock mixture a good whizz. Switch off before withdrawing. (Yes, I know that's usually bad advice any day of the week, but ignoring it here will result in veg-based frightfulness.)

5) Taste. Correct the seasoning. Add a splash of cream, white wine or sherry if desired. Whizz again.

6) Bring back to the boil.

7) Serve to smiling children.

8) Open a can of applause.

Yes, the same result, in the same time, at less than one tenth of the cost.

Gosh, I hope the soup maker is marketed in a sturdy wipe-clean box capable of supporting other trashy kitchen gadget boxes, because it's going to be shoved to the back of some cabinet. Where it will join the sandwich-makers, the Cornish pasty cutters, the microwave egg-scramblers, the salad spinners, the George Foreman grills, the fat-free fryers, the breadmakers and the turnip twaddlers.

Really, I can't believe people still fall for this crap.