3 Jan 2014: The Forum is currently in read-only made while we update to a new version of the Seventy% website and forum.

The forum will be back with a faster, simplified and up to date website in the next two months.

Please consider registering
guest

Log In

Lost password?
Advanced Search:

— Forum Scope —



— Match —



— Forum Options —




Wildcard usage:
*  matches any number of characters    %  matches exactly one character

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

The forums are currently locked and only available for read only access
Topic RSS
Questions about chocolate
April 20, 2008
9:14 pm
Chocolati
Member
Forum Posts: 9
Member Since:
April 20, 2008
Offline

Hello all. I’m new here and have some questions about chocolate.

I know the thread about percentages is there and I’ve been going through that, but my question is this:

What makes chocolate bitter? If one company’s chocolate is 70% and another is 70% too, why could it be that one is more ‘bitter’ than the other.

I ask this because I was on another site that reviewed the Valrhona 70% (Noir Amer) and said it was quite close to baker’s chocolate (unsweetened). But Lindt’s 70% is very good. I have never tasted, nevermind seeing any Valrhona here, but I can sort of see the huge gap within the same percentage.

Now, is there a way of telling what you’re dealing with from the nutritional information on the package? That is to say ‘how bitter’ this chocolate is going to be?

So anyways, I’m ‘Chocolati’, a guy from BC, Canada. The only fine chocolates I’ve come across is Lindt. I’ve seen some Ghirardelli but hesitated to get any. Thoughts on the Ghira?

Another question I may ask (sorry for all these questions) is origins. When X company puts out a ‘Madagascar’ does that mean they’re getting the same beans as Y company when Y company also puts out a Madagascar?

It seems on here people expect a certain taste from say a Madagascar or an Ecuador chocolate despite the company. What’s to look for?

Thanks for your time!

April 21, 2008
2:31 am
Alex Rast
Manchester, United Kingdom
Member
Forum Posts: 283
Member Since:
October 13, 2009
Offline

quote:


Originally posted by Chocolati

What makes chocolate bitter? If one company’s chocolate is 70% and another is 70% too, why could it be that one is more ‘bitter’ than the other.


Well, it’s a combination of several factors. But (assuming, at least, the same overall percentage) there are 4 that are most important.

One of them is the actual percentage of defatted cocoa solids (the flavour-bearing component)to cocoa butter(the fat component). That’s easy to determine: on a nutrition label the fat content will give you your overall percentage of cocoa butter, by dividing the fat grams by the total grams in the bar. Then as long as the cocoa solids percentage is given, you just subtract the percentage of cocoa butter from the given cocoa solids percentage to get the defatted cocoa solids percentage. From there it’s straightforward to find the ratio of one versus the other.

Anyway, the greater the percentage of cocoa butter, the milder the chocolate will be. It’s a function of manufacturer choice. Thus for example Hachez’ Arriba, with 55% cocoa butter, is extremely mild even at 77% total cocoa solids, while El Rey’s Gran Saman, with 36.5% cocoa butter, is extremely intense with, in fact, a lesser 70% total cocoa solids. Subjectively, a high-cocoa-butter chocolate will also seem less harsh simply because of the improved smoothness in mouthfeel.

Second is the ratio of anthocyanins to tannins in the bar. These flavonoids are the main flavour components of chocolate. Anthocynanins lend a fruity taste, while tannins lend a more woody taste. The greater the proportion of tannins, the more bitter the bar will be because tannic flavour compounds are the source of bitterness in chocolate. Also, chocolates with high anthocynanin proportion, tasting quite fruity, will again seem subjectively less bitter anyway, because the fruity acidity tends to mask bitterness. This is a function of bean type. Most Forasteros are very tannic – and this includes most chocolate sourced in Africa and Brazil. Most Criollos are very low tannin; these are varietals such as Porcelana, Ocumare 61 and 67, and most Madagascar Sambiranos. Most Trinitarios are mid-tannin; these come from a variety of sources but concentrate in Central America.

Third is the degree of roast. Roasting breaks down both compounds, so that a chocolate that started out with very tannic beans can seem markedly less bitter than it would have been, if it’s been dark-roasted. Conversely, a chocolate that started out with very anthocyanic beans will begin to seem more bitter, because the masking anthocynanins have disappeared. This is a function of chocolatier style. Valrhona, for example, roasts minimally, while Pralus roasts very heavily.

Last is Dutching: processing the beans with potassium carbonate. This always leads to a much less bitter chocolate, albeit also with a more muted overall flavour, thanks to the chemical process. Most quality chocolatiers seem to avoid Dutching but Cuba Venchi does so aggressively and with quite reasonable results.

quote:


I ask this because I was on another site that reviewed the Valrhona 70% (Noir Amer) and said it was quite close to baker’s chocolate (unsweetened). But Lindt’s 70% is very good.


That’s probably an inexperienced reviewer. Valrhona’s Noir Amer is a quantum leap above Lindt, and in fact isn’t particularly bitter at all. If you tasted it side-by-side with the Lindt the difference will be stark. Nonetheless, there are still less bitter 70%’s, with probably the ultimate example in Domori’s Porcelana.

quote:


So anyways, I’m ‘Chocolati’, a guy from BC, Canada. The only fine chocolates I’ve come across is Lindt. I’ve seen some Ghirardelli but hesitated to get any. Thoughts on the Ghira?


Well, they’re both owned by Lindt – so you may be in for surprising similarities! However it’s always good to try another chocolate just to broaden your experience. IME Lindt has been on average slightly better, but this is a recent development.

quote:


Another question I may ask (sorry for all these questions) is origins. When X company puts out a ‘Madagascar’ does that mean they’re getting the same beans as Y company when Y company also puts out a Madagascar?


No. Broadly the beans may come from similar origins, and you do have to watch for companies who aren’t bean-to-bar but are just remoulding bought couverture (usually from Callebaut)… or ownership ties such as Lindt/Ghirardelli which make common beans almost a certainty, but otherwise they can be quite different.

That said, there are regional similarities – it’s easy to get an idea of what the signature tastes of each origin are by looking through the ratings on this site.

Alex Rast
Alex_Rast_Alternate@hushmail.com

Alex Rast Alex_Rast_Alternate@hushmail.com
April 21, 2008
6:27 am
Chocolati
Member
Forum Posts: 9
Member Since:
April 20, 2008
Offline

Thanks for all that!

I just remembered, I have seen and tried another chocolate over here. It was a 70% Cote d’Or. From what I tasted, it seemed more waxy. It had cocoa nibs in it, which I don’t know if I like that (it was okay, but I think I like plain chocolate better).

April 23, 2008
3:26 am
oz_choc
Kandos, Australia
Member
Forum Posts: 98
Member Since:
January 10, 2006
Offline

quote:


Second is the ratio of anthocyanins to tannins in the bar. These flavonoids are the main flavour components of chocolate. Anthocynanins lend a fruity taste, while tannins lend a more woody taste. The greater the proportion of tannins, the more bitter the bar will be because tannic flavour compounds are the source of bitterness in chocolate. Also, chocolates with high anthocynanin proportion, tasting quite fruity, will again seem subjectively less bitter anyway, because the fruity acidity tends to mask bitterness. This is a function of bean type. Most Forasteros are very tannic – and this includes most chocolate sourced in Africa and Brazil. Most Criollos are very low tannin; these are varietals such as Porcelana, Ocumare 61 and 67, and most Madagascar Sambiranos. Most Trinitarios are mid-tannin; these come from a variety of sources but concentrate in Central America.


While I agree that polyphenols (including anthocyanins and tannins) produce most of the bitterness in chocolate, there are some specific problems with Alex’s theory. For example:

1. The idea that a high anthocyanin to tannin ratio produces a pleasant chocolate, and that Porcelana is an example of this effect, is contradicted by the fact that “pure” Criollo beans such as Porcelana are white, meaning they have no anthocyanins (which are purple), and therefore must have one of the lowest anthocyanin to tannin ratios of all cocoas. (Even the whitest Criollo cocoa beans contain bitter tasting polyphenols, otherwise they wouldn’t experience enzymatic browning during fermentation. This browning is caused by the enzyme polyphenol oxidase).

2. Anthocyanins and tannins are odourless. This means that, while these chemicals certainly cause varying degrees of astringency and bitterness, they do not have any flavour-causing aromas. By contrast, woods – oak being a classic example – have very distinct flavour-causing aromas. Hence, I disagree that tannins produce a “woody” flavour.

Indeed, the whole idea that tannins and anthocyanins are “the main flavour components of chocolate” totally ignores the hundreds of aroma chemicals that produce all those chocolatey, nutty, roasty, floral, earthy, caramel, fruity, and green flavours (for example).

I also disagree that anthocyanins make chocolate taste fruity or acidic. The relationship between acidity and fruitiness in cocoa is widely accepted. For example, alkalisation or “Dutching” is notorious for producing un-fruity cocoas. However, acidity in cocoa is dictated almost entirely by post-harvest processing, rather than the genetics of the bean. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, while anthocyanins are affected by the acidity in their environment (which causes them to change colour), they don’t cause acidity.

Interestingly, scientific studies** have shown that fermented and dried Forastero beans from West Africa have lower bitterness and astringency, and more chocolate flavour or aroma, than so-called “fine/flavour” beans from places like Trinidad and Venezuela. This really demonstrates how significant the impact of fermentation is (in case there was any doubt!)

Indeed, cocoa fermentation has an effect on cocoa which is very similar to the effect that aging has on tannic red wines: over time, the tannins combine with each other, and with other chemicals, becoming bigger and less bitter. The red colour becomes more brown, and the astringent quality becomes less harsh, and more mellow and velvety, producing a very pleasant, long finish.

Of course, when it comes to describing bitterness in chocolate, there’s no doubt that personal perception plays a huge role, not only as to whether a chocolate is actually perceived as bitter, but also whether that bitterness is perceived as pleasant or unpleasant.

Most people very strongly associate bitterness with unpleasantness.

For example, Lesschaeve and Noble** have noted that: “When consumers tended to like a wine, they did not use bitter as a descriptor. Bitter was used to express dislike and tended to be associated with acid and astringent sensory characteristics, not bitterness. In the same study, consumers who liked astringent wines described them as having “a lot of character” or “a long aftertaste.”"

However, in discussing ways to reduce bitterness in cocoa, Glenn Roy (in his book Modifying bitterness: mechanism, ingredients, and applications) says that “questions arise as to whether a bitter inhibition ingredient or process is really a necessity for cocoa or coffee because Kava, the debittered coffee product, was never successful”.

In fact, most chocolates do contain a very important “bitter inhibition ingredient”, namely sugar. The importance of sugar in chocolate can be measured by the unpopularity of totally unsweetened chocolates. For example, I don’t think any unsweetened bars made it into the Academy of Chocolate’s list of winners for 2008, did they? (Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think Amedei’s winning Toscana bar is about 37% sugar, while even their Porcelana bar contains about 30% sugar. Both of these bars would be hideously sweet unless there was some pretty serious bitterness and/or acidity being offset. By comparison, the icky-sweet breakfast cereal Coco Pops is 34% sugar).

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that some people are much more sensitive to both sweetness and bitterness than others. This sensitivity is influenced by the number of taste buds a taster has. For instance, so-called “super tasters” (who have relatively more taste buds than average) can find ordinary vegetables offensively bitter, while “non-tasters” (who have fewer taste buds) are relatively insensitive to bitterness and sweetness.

Maybe the person who found Valrhona’s 70% Noir Amer very bitter is a super taster.

** References:

Sukha et al (2007) “The use of an optimised organoleptic assessment protocol to describe and quantify different flavour attributes of cocoa liquors made from Ghana and Trinitario beans”

Counet et al (2004) “Relationship between procyanidin and flavor contents of cocoa liquors from different origins”

Clapperton et al (1994) “The contribution of genotype to cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) flavour”

Lesschaeve and Noble (2004) “Polyphenols: factors influencing their sensory properties and their effects on food and beverage preferences”

April 23, 2008
5:42 pm
Ilana
Israel
Member
Forum Posts: 155
Member Since:
September 1, 2006
Offline

Well thank you for all this info! Now, I have to go back when I am even more patient and read Alex’s and your remarks again and again!

Ilana Bar-Hai www.ganache.co.il
April 28, 2008
12:31 am
Chocolati
Member
Forum Posts: 9
Member Since:
April 20, 2008
Offline

Well I just found out something.

At the store today, I saw some bars by Scharffen Berger. I couldn’t find out on the package where the chocolates come from so I dismissed them as perhaps something local and / or perhaps not that good.

Anyways, I found the name [url=http://www.thenibble.com/reviews/main/chocolate/glossary.asp]here[/url] after reading about Dutching. Turns out Scharffen Berger don’t dutch their chocolates.

Where are Scharffen Berger from? Could I kindly ask your thoughts on them?

April 28, 2008
9:56 am
Domenico
Budapest, Hungary
Member
Forum Posts: 81
Member Since:
December 12, 2005
Offline

Sam, thanks a lot for this very well based info on aroma components and perception. I was about to collect the same approximately from my sources for private use but you saved a lot of time for me. Sad, but true that things are not as simple as they ought to be-and this is even more true in those cases where human brain functions are involved :)

April 28, 2008
6:14 pm
Sebastian
Member
Forum Posts: 430
Member Since:
September 30, 2004
Offline

Scharffen Berger is in California. Hershey bought them a couple of years ago. Their approach is to blend various flavor grade beans. Generally speaking, I like their product.

FWIW, most bar retailers don’t use dutched chocolate. There are some mass market exceptions, of course, but that’s the general rule of thumb at this point in the game.

April 29, 2008
1:10 am
oz_choc
Kandos, Australia
Member
Forum Posts: 98
Member Since:
January 10, 2006
Offline

Hi Domenico,

I’m really glad you found those references useful.

The psychology of taste is a very interesting subject, and one that causes frustration for people like me who work with Forastero cocoa beans – given the strong, negative prejudices that so many people have about Forastero beans.

I’ve spent months reading all of the scientific literature on cocoa and chocolate, searching for any evidence that Criollo cocoa beans are “better” than Forastero beans by any objective measure. This issue is especially pertinent to us at Tava, because we have the option to obtain Criollo trees for our cocoa growers. However, Criollo trees are frail, and they produce a much smaller yield than Forastero trees, so there needs to be a very sound reason to grow them. In my informed opinion, no such reason exists.

For instance, the International Cocoa Organisation (ICCO) spent more than 5 years, and well over a million dollars, on a “Project to establish the physical, chemical and organoleptic parameters to differentiate between fine or flavour and bulk cocoa”**. The most consistently reliable difference they found between “flavour” and “bulk” beans (apart from DNA) was the theobromine/caffeine ratio. However, they concluded that “this ratio could not differentiate qualities of expected flavour profiles”.

When the scientists working on this project tried to use perceived flavour to differentiate between “flavour” beans and “bulk” beans, the only consistent difference they found between beans from different origins was that the “bulk” beans had a stronger chocolate flavour. (Why on earth a strong chocolate flavour is considered to be a bad thing by certain chocolate enthusiasts, I will never understand – especially when the flavour we know as “chocolate” is not only unique to chocolate, but is also a very complex harmony of hundreds of different aroma chemicals).

As Gary Reineccius (professor in food science at the University of Minnesota) has said:

quote:


“It’s very difficult to make a totally natural chocolate flavor, because the chemicals comprising chocolate flavor aren’t available in natural form, and the flavorist won’t even get close to a mediocre natural chocolate flavor by putting together pure chemicals without adding chocolate products.”


In any case, the psychology of tasting is such that packaging and promotion have a huge impact on consumers. Hence, if someone is told often enough that Criollo chocolate is “the best”, they’re very likely to believe it … and if they genuinely believe that Criollo chocolate is the best, then it will truly taste the best.

Some classic studies in this field have been carried out within the wine industry, as documented in this very entertaining article: [url="http://www.international.inra.fr/press/the_flavour_of_wine_is_in_our_heads"]The flavour of wine … is in our heads[/url].

Some other interesting studies about the psychology of taste include:

A Rose by Any Other Name: Would it Smell as Sweet? by Djordjevic et al
(This study found that presenting an odor with a positive, neutral, or negative name influenced how people perceive it).

and

Remembrance of Odors Past – Human Olfactory Cortex in Cross-Modal Recognition Memory by Gottfried et al
(This study found that memory is often imbued with multisensory richness, such that the recall of an event can be endowed with the sights, sounds, and smells of its prior occurrence).

All fascinating stuff.

** On the right-hand side of [url="http://www.icco.org/projects/projects1.aspx?id=lp52140"]this page[/url], there is a link to the Completion Report (in Word doc format) relating to ICCO’s Project to establish the physical, chemical and organoleptic parameters to differentiate between fine or flavour and bulk cocoa.

April 29, 2008
10:20 pm
Domenico
Budapest, Hungary
Member
Forum Posts: 81
Member Since:
December 12, 2005
Offline
10

I just want to add a line from Claudio Corallo when we talked about cocoa producers and the final taste of good cocoa: “Ma, Dio, non sanno fermentare” – Oh my God, they simply don’t know how to ferment…

However, this line of thought should be continued and I still think some factual base of the taste _difference_ between Forastero and Criollo exists. Such as Criollos would roast differently-I mean the roast maillardization would yield different products given the different ratio/content of NH2-containing amino acid side chains or the like.
But still the far highest impact on taste is achieved by post harvest processing.

May 2, 2008
11:40 pm
Alex Rast
Manchester, United Kingdom
Member
Forum Posts: 283
Member Since:
October 13, 2009
Offline
11

quote:


Originally posted by Domenico

Sam, thanks a lot for this very well based info on aroma components and perception. I was about to collect the same approximately from my sources for private use but you saved a lot of time for me. Sad, but true that things are not as simple as they ought to be-and this is even more true in those cases where human brain functions are involved :)


I lean strongly in favour of approaches along the lines of Sukha, et. al, because these are accessible to most producers. The reality is that the smaller chocolate manufacturers, who by the nature of the size of the supply are the ones generally able to as well as willing to manufacture top-quality chocolate, don’t usually have the resources necessary to invest in complex chemical analysis equipment or the professional expertise necessary to use it. Thus the more complex chemical analyses are for practical purposes out of reach for those for whom the uses they might put to it would be of greatest interest to most of the people in this forum.

Larger chocolate manufacturers can and do afford the labs and personnel, but their analysis is usually geared towards somewhat different aims, not necessarily diametrically opposed to quality production but aiming to make the most of beans and or techniques that are inherently not top quality.

However, when it comes to the idea that things may not be as simple as one might like, I would in contrast caution against the dangers of overcomplicating the issues. It *must* be possible to simplify the classification of chocolate flavour, because if this were not the case, there would be few cases indeed where any consensus as to flavour could be reached. Opinions would diverge significantly if differences were critically dependent on small effects, and this would be particularly true of differences between different chocolates from the same origin or bean type.

In fact we observe that although, yes, some differences of opinion exist, by and large there seems to be broad consensus on many chocolates, as well as general agreement as to the flavour characteristics of certain beans and origins. This suggests a simplification is appropriate and probably more useful as it eliminates small factors that might tend to confuse rather than explain.

Also, on a practical level, it’s important to have simplified classifications of flavour as an aid to the consumer, who is likely not interested in the intricacies of the subject so much as he is about what the classification can tell him on what to expect of a given chocolate. And likewise to the producer it’s more useful because it helps him to make spot bean and process choices without spending time and resources he may not have in an effort to achieve results that may not be achievable within the degree of precision that a detailed analysis might be hoped to provide. In that sense it’s better to have a description that may be in some ways technically inaccurate, incomplete, or only a partial truth, that gives a good approximation to the general subjective evaluation, than a description that is rigorous and precise but that is very difficult to correlate with the subjective assessment or requires methods or knowledge beyond the range of the user.

Alex Rast
Alex_Rast_Alternate@hushmail.com

Alex Rast Alex_Rast_Alternate@hushmail.com
May 4, 2008
2:05 pm
oz_choc
Kandos, Australia
Member
Forum Posts: 98
Member Since:
January 10, 2006
Offline
12

Alex wrote:

quote:


it’s better to have a description that may be in some ways technically inaccurate, incomplete, or only a partial truth, that gives a good approximation to the general subjective evaluation, than a description that is rigorous and precise but that is very difficult to correlate with the subjective assessment or requires methods or knowledge beyond the range of the user.


Alex – it strikes me as patronizing and unhelpful to justify providing “inaccurate, incomplete, and partially true” information by implying that the members of 70% are not knowledgeable or intelligent enough to understand “rigorous and precise” information.

If teachers throughout history had agreed with your idea – that unknowledgeable people are unworthy of receiving accurate information – then we’d still be living in caves, and fine chocolate would never have been invented.

=====

Domenico wrote:

quote:


I still think some factual base of the taste _difference_ between Forastero and Criollo exists. Such as Criollos would roast differently-I mean the roast maillardization would yield different products given the different ratio/content of NH2-containing amino acid side chains or the like.


On the contrary, Domenico – scientists have shown that Criollo and Forastero beans contain identical sugars, and indistinguishable proteins, in indistinguishable proportions, which are broken down by identical enzymes into identical amino acids and peptides, which in turn form identical aroma compounds during roasting* (that is, as long as the beans experience the same growing, harvesting, fermentation, drying, and roasting conditions).

Also, don’t forget that DNA research indicates that Criollo trees are the descendants of Forastero trees**. So, Criollo beans essentially exhibit a small subset of the myriad characteristics which are present within the wild Forastero populations located at cacao’s “center of diversity” in South America. (The wild Forastero population is very diverse and quite distinct from the somewhat inbred and genetically-limited Forastero cultivar known as West African Amelonado, which many people mistakenly regard as being synonymous with the much more general category of “Forastero”. I believe this is why some people have so much trouble accepting Nacional/Arriba cocoa as a type of Forastero – because most people have a biased and ill-informed notion of what the “Forastero” genotype really encompasses).

Incidentally, the whiteness of pure Criollo beans results from a genetic mutation relating to anthocyanin production. This mutation continues to occur in Forastero populations from time to time***. A similar mutation caused white grapes: [url="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E2DE153AF930A3575AC0A96F958260"]For a Noble Grape, Disdained Parentage[/url]

In summing up, I cannot say categorically that no differences in aroma-potential exist between Criollo and Forastero beans, but if such differences do exist, they have so far eluded detection by modern science.

Finally, it is worth noting that there aren’t many studies pertaining to cocoa/chocolate flavour/aroma that have adequately excluded non-genetic factors (such as terroir and post-harvest processing) from the results. In this regard, to give just one example, the study published by Sukha et al (which is referred to earlier in this thread) was a joke, because the beans they used were grown in different places by different people and they were fermented and dried differently.

References:

*
Amin, I. (2002) Oligopeptide patterns produced from Theobroma cacao L of various genetic origins

Amin, I. (2002) Analysis of vicilin (7S)-class globulin in cocoa cotyledons from various genetic origins

Rohsius, C. (2006) Free amino acid amounts in raw cocoas from different origins

Graziani de Fariñas, L. (2003) Chemical characteristics of seeds of different types of cocoa from the locality of Cumboto, Aragua

**
Motamayor et al (2002) Cacao domestication I: the origin of the cacao cultivated by the Mayas

***
Dias, L.A.S., (1997) Multivariate genetic divergence and hybrid performance of cacao (Theobroma cacao L.)

Ciferri & Ciferri (1957) The Evolution of Cultivated Cacao

May 4, 2008
9:21 pm
Alex Rast
Manchester, United Kingdom
Member
Forum Posts: 283
Member Since:
October 13, 2009
Offline
13

quote:


Originally posted by oz_choc

Alex wrote:

quote:


it’s better to have a description that may be in some ways technically inaccurate, incomplete, or only a partial truth, that gives a good approximation to the general subjective evaluation, than a description that is rigorous and precise but that is very difficult to correlate with the subjective assessment or requires methods or knowledge beyond the range of the user.


Alex – it strikes me as patronizing and unhelpful to justify providing “inaccurate, incomplete, and partially true” information by implying that the members of 70% are not knowledgeable or intelligent enough to understand “rigorous and precise” information.


No, I wasn’t implying anything like that. As you see from what I said I wasn’t saying that an imprecise simplification is absolutely to be preferred. My point was, *if* a simplification can be found that is a reasonably good guide, and *if* the exactly accurate descriptions are difficult to evaluate, even potentially for experts, *then* a simplifying description can be of use, e.g. Sukha’s model.

Equally importantly, regardless of one’s level of knowledge or intelligence, there are many circumstances under which an exact description of the process is tedious or for that matter immaterial for the goal in view. For example, it’s absurd to describe the bulk motion of bodies moving at slow speeds using relativistic physics, because classical physics gives the answers required within the timescales of the system under consideration. And proceeding still further, it’s absurd to try to compute the motion and force vectors involved in a potential car collision when the goal is to drive safely.

Wnen I mention “methods and knowledge beyond the range of the user” what I mean is not ones that the user is fundamentally incapable of understanding, but rather ones that would take more time and/or money than the user has at hand, e.g. having to buy analysis equipment that he cannot afford or read carefully on specialised procedures that may take more time than he has to invest.

quote:


If teachers throughout history had agreed with your idea – that unknowledgeable people are unworthy of receiving accurate information
{/quote]

That’s definitely NOT my idea. My thinking is rather that people, at whatever level of knowledge, are worthy of receiving useful information without excessive rigour being applied if it isn’t central to the purpose at hand.

It would seem I am more prone to foot-in-mouth disease than most. Do you think that most people took this comment the way that you apparently did – implying stupidity upon an audience when that was not what I was trying to imply? [:I] If so do you have any suggestions as to how the comment might have been worded better?

- then we’d still be living in caves, and fine chocolate would never have been invented.


At the risk of digging myself an even deeper grave, I think, then, what I was trying to say is that if teachers throughout history hadn’t agreed with the idea I had – that there are times when a good approximation is more relevant that an elaborate but perfect system, then we might still be living in caves, albeit perfectly chiselled and refined caves measured to micron tolerances, and fine chocolate might have been invented but no one would be able to agree upon whether it could actually be said to exist.
[;)]

Alex Rast
Alex_Rast_Alternate@hushmail.com

Alex Rast Alex_Rast_Alternate@hushmail.com