what are the roots of serving chili with rice?
 

Doug Freyburger > wrote:

>Science is more than that so technically the ancients did not have
>science. What they had is reasoning and observation without certain
>important features of science. Science is a system that includes
>publishing and getting credit that ensures it builds on itself.

That's a pretty local view of science. Lots of science
does not involve publication. Plus, the ancients had their own
peer-review mechanisms.

Steve

what are the roots of serving chili with rice?
 

Steve Pope wrote:
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
>>Science is more than that so technically the ancients did not have
>>science. What they had is reasoning and observation without certain
>>important features of science. Science is a system that includes
>>publishing and getting credit that ensures it builds on itself.
>
> That's a pretty local view of science. Lots of science
> does not involve publication.

It's a technicality in this discussion. Agreed.

> Plus, the ancients had their own peer-review mechanisms.

One of the problems with material advancement in the ages before science
is discoveries and methods were kept secret and eventually lost. Long
term progress was limited to what was leaked to the public. Technology
was limited by secrecy. One feature of science was the conversion to
credit by publication that turned discovery into a competition.

So while peer reviewing mechanisms existed they generally trended
towards stifling advancement not towards opening advancement.

what are the roots of serving chili with rice?
 

Doug Freyburger > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> Doug Freyburger > wrote:

>>>Science is more than that so technically the ancients did not have
>>>science. What they had is reasoning and observation without certain
>>>important features of science. Science is a system that includes
>>>publishing and getting credit that ensures it builds on itself.
>>
>> That's a pretty local view of science. Lots of science
>> does not involve publication.
>
>It's a technicality in this discussion. Agreed.
>
>> Plus, the ancients had their own peer-review mechanisms.
>
>One of the problems with material advancement in the ages before science
>is discoveries and methods were kept secret and eventually lost. Long
>term progress was limited to what was leaked to the public. Technology
>was limited by secrecy. One feature of science was the conversion to
>credit by publication that turned discovery into a competition.
>
>So while peer reviewing mechanisms existed they generally trended
>towards stifling advancement not towards opening advancement.

The secrecy problem has not exactly entirely gone away. This is
particularly true in areas like digital signal processing and
cryptology, where important discoveries have been kept secret
for decades. Also, materials technology. This is how the U.S.
government managed to lose the recipe for FOGBANK.

A more historic example of materials technology secrecy going
awry is Damascus steel, the process for which has also become lost
and is to the best of anyone's knowledge, unrecoverable.

Steve

what are the roots of serving chili with rice?
 

Steve Pope wrote:
>
> The secrecy problem has not exactly entirely gone away.

In the US the legal statuses include "Trade Secret" which is like a
patent that if leaked is lost, and classified data.

> This is
> particularly true in areas like digital signal processing and
> cryptology, where important discoveries have been kept secret
> for decades. Also, materials technology. This is how the U.S.
> government managed to lose the recipe for FOGBANK.
>
> A more historic example of materials technology secrecy going
> awry is Damascus steel, the process for which has also become lost
> and is to the best of anyone's knowledge, unrecoverable.

The theory is Damascus steel was reinvented about 20 years ago and
published in Scientific American. Or was it Discover. I alternate my
subscription back and forth between them over the years.

Heat steel with a specific carbon content to a specific temperature to
have a mix of two different crystal structures then quench to freeze
the mixture. Forge below a specific temperature to retain the dual
crystal microstructure. The result is a mottled appearance that goes
all the way through the steel. I have seen blades like that in
specialty knife shops in recent years but so far I don't think I've seen
any kitchen knives made this way.

The two types of crystal in question are also the ones used in Japanese
katana steel that is folded to acheive the same end but with a layered
marcostructure that has wavey lines on the surface instead of a more
uniform mottling. This type of blade now even appears in very high end
kitchen knives so it's possible some on RFC dice their beef for the
"serving chili with rice" mentioned in the subject line. This folded
style tends to be called Damascene steel. I don't agree with how it's
named.

Europeans tended to try to acheive that by pattern welding steel cured
at two different temperatures. Rods were spun together, forged to rough
shape. Then harder more brittle steel was hammer wleded to the outside
edge and the final shape tuned before grinding and polishing. There are
a few swordsmiths who actually make swords like this for the collector
market. Jim Hrouslas of Salamder Armory may still be in that business.
I've seen him at shows back when I still lived in Los Angeles metro.