I think I see where you’re going with this, but to be more analytical than you intended, the answer to one of your questions is hypostatic abstraction. It’s an immediate (and therefore deductive) logical inference that, in this case, goes like this:
You can toast marshmallows with an open flame.
There is some means/power/virtue/relationship by which you can toasts marshmallows with an open flame.
This relationship inferred is called the hypostatic object. It’s a deductive inference, so if it seems like this hasn’t actually added any information, you’re right. But it is often a useful inference in that it brings out the hypostatic object which is latent in proposition (1) above, but isn’t itself (yet) an object of thought. In this case, obviously, the hypostatic object is to be identified with heat. A lot of our scientific concepts were once nothing more than hypostatic objects: think of electrons (the whatever that produces electricity) and photons (the whatever that produces light); eventually more is learned about these objects, so that saying something like “electrons are responsible for electricity” is no longer tautological.
The point being, when you were associating roasting marshmallows with an open flame, you were thinking too concrete. So how do we stop and think about these daily, ordinary things, at a more abstract level? I don’t know. There are probably all sorts of things like that which I’m hardly aware of. Maybe I should just go through a brainstorming sessions about ordinary things and try to think at a more abstract level.
Not all heating methods would satisfactorily toast marshmallows. The microwave makes them blow up and boiling them would dissolve them. So merely being consciously aware that heat is involved in the roasting wouldn’t be enough to make me think that not only one specific type of heat would do.
That’s a good point, which means that heat is too general to function as the hypostatic object. I would guess that it’s a particular way in which heat is applied. The heat has to be applied to the surface, and it has to be transmitted through the air. And, at least relative the reflexes of the cook, the temperature can’t be too high.
Makes you wonder if a marshmallow can be toasted with a hair dryer :D
Makes you wonder if a marshmallow can be toasted with a hair dryer :D
Challenge accepted; if I get my hands on both materials, I’ll do it this weekend.
I don’t know if I can take a video, though, so my word may have to be trusted when I answer.
I suspect a plain hair dryer can’t produce that much heat, however a hot air gun should work neatly (I used routinely a Bosch PHG 600-3 and I want to point out that you can seriously burn yourself if you don’t properly handle it).
I tried with a relatively weaker hairdryer and, while it didn’t toast brown, the marshmallow did have a outside, crispier layer with a gooey inside, and tasted very good. I’ll be trying with a stronger hair dryer on Friday, seeing if browning is possible.
I think I see where you’re going with this, but to be more analytical than you intended, the answer to one of your questions is hypostatic abstraction. It’s an immediate (and therefore deductive) logical inference that, in this case, goes like this:
You can toast marshmallows with an open flame.
There is some means/power/virtue/relationship by which you can toasts marshmallows with an open flame.
This relationship inferred is called the hypostatic object. It’s a deductive inference, so if it seems like this hasn’t actually added any information, you’re right. But it is often a useful inference in that it brings out the hypostatic object which is latent in proposition (1) above, but isn’t itself (yet) an object of thought. In this case, obviously, the hypostatic object is to be identified with heat. A lot of our scientific concepts were once nothing more than hypostatic objects: think of electrons (the whatever that produces electricity) and photons (the whatever that produces light); eventually more is learned about these objects, so that saying something like “electrons are responsible for electricity” is no longer tautological.
The point being, when you were associating roasting marshmallows with an open flame, you were thinking too concrete. So how do we stop and think about these daily, ordinary things, at a more abstract level? I don’t know. There are probably all sorts of things like that which I’m hardly aware of. Maybe I should just go through a brainstorming sessions about ordinary things and try to think at a more abstract level.
Not all heating methods would satisfactorily toast marshmallows. The microwave makes them blow up and boiling them would dissolve them. So merely being consciously aware that heat is involved in the roasting wouldn’t be enough to make me think that not only one specific type of heat would do.
That’s a good point, which means that heat is too general to function as the hypostatic object. I would guess that it’s a particular way in which heat is applied. The heat has to be applied to the surface, and it has to be transmitted through the air. And, at least relative the reflexes of the cook, the temperature can’t be too high.
Makes you wonder if a marshmallow can be toasted with a hair dryer :D
Challenge accepted; if I get my hands on both materials, I’ll do it this weekend. I don’t know if I can take a video, though, so my word may have to be trusted when I answer.
Update: Comment here
I suspect a plain hair dryer can’t produce that much heat, however a hot air gun should work neatly (I used routinely a Bosch PHG 600-3 and I want to point out that you can seriously burn yourself if you don’t properly handle it).
Alton Brown, in a recent Good Eats episode, went through the several ways to toast bread for croutons:
oven broiler / toaster oven
grill
heat gun
blowtorch (of the kind used to solder copper pipes, available cheaply at hardware stores)
I’ve seen him recommend heat guns on other occasions so I bet it would work just fine.
Have you considered getting a smartphone (soon to be known as a “phone”)?
Considered? Yes. Decided it was a good idea? Not on my current undergraduate non-budget.
A wife can be equally restrictive :)
Edit: just noticed the down vote. Not sure why—a wife can be restrictive in that I’d like a smart phone and she doesn’t want me to have one.
Don’t forget the kiln. My metal smithing instructor made some killer peeps (I normally dislike peeps) in a kiln.
I would dislike peeps, too, if they were the killer kind.
Marshmallow Update (sorry for the lateness):
I tried with a relatively weaker hairdryer and, while it didn’t toast brown, the marshmallow did have a outside, crispier layer with a gooey inside, and tasted very good. I’ll be trying with a stronger hair dryer on Friday, seeing if browning is possible.
Okay, now I’ve got to try that. My microwave oven will be messy, and it will be your fault.