The theory that different areas of the tongue tasted different things—the Tongue Map—has been pretty thoroughly debunked but lived for aboutt a century. This seems like something fairly easily testable.
Bullet lead analysis gained scientific acceptance and stuck around for forty years; it still is viewed as good science by many, although its probative value may have been overstated.
Bruise aging was accepted for a shorter period of time, but appears almost worthless. This was another testable hypothesis that lasted longer than it should have.
I don’t have particularly smart things to say about why these errors lasted while others were destroyed by truth. Perhaps someone else does.
AIUI, different areas of the tongue do have different concentrations of the various sensors. The tongue map taken literally as “you taste salt only here, sweet only here, bitter only there” is wrong, but that the different areas represented are indeed more sensitive.
When I was in elementary school—must have been a year when I was attending a good one—we did an experiment where we tasted things with different parts of our tongue. It was experimentally verified by us that the way things tasted depended on the region. And then we ate an apple while smelling an onion, and compared the sensations of immersing our hands in hot water or ice water separately and simultaneously.
Was this experiment done before you learned the tongue map? Have you tried it again?
Suggestibility affects taste significantly; see the wine tasting experiment, and the well-known visual component of eating. Very fine chefs sometimes cannot identify ingredients just by tasting them (see: Top Chef Masters.)
Further, this sounds like yet another data point in the need for double blind studies.
Still, it’s nice to see kids involved in experiments of some sort.
I did a mini-experiment before posting the comment. I only had chips on hand, so this was meant to be an experiment with detecting saltiness, while holding my nose. The experiment was difficult to interpret due to uneven salt on the chips, but I decided that while the salt was detected by all parts of my tongue, the taste sensation felt different—from tangy to itchy, depending on the region. I decided that tasting was “complicated”—that was my only conclusion.
Tongue map and bullet lead analysis are in wikipedia, and both (as of yesterday) looked like reasoned articles to me, though the statistical confusion in bullet lead analysis is not well laid out.
Scientific American? Yes. It’s been a standard pop-sci magazine for decades, although in the last twenty years or so it has become much less rigorous. The reporting should be accurate, though.
You’re just saying that because of their position on grober crimate change.
In fairness, I think the issue is way overplayed. How exactly would it interfere with wire metal forming methods or helping people adapt to Office? I don’t get it.
Okay, what the hell is up with the moderators here? I wasn’t calling “User:Alicorn” ridiculous for suggesting that paper clips can melt. I mean, come on, give me a little credit here. Not to brag, but I think I know a little about this kind of thing...
Clipper, C. “On the Influence of High-Temperature Environments on Failure Modes in Self-Locking Removable Fasteners”, Journal of Non-Destructive Fastening, Vol. 3, Issue 2
Ahem. Anyway, what I was saying is, yes, paperclips can melt, but you need a LOT more than grober crimate change to melt them all into an undifferntiable mass, okay? Like, even if you set every coal vein on fire, AND filtered out the particulate matter to prevent cooling effects, you STILL wouldn’t make the planet hot enough to melt all paper clips together for over a hundred years.
The theory that different areas of the tongue tasted different things—the Tongue Map—has been pretty thoroughly debunked but lived for aboutt a century. This seems like something fairly easily testable.
The wikipedia article makes it look like it’s basically true and that a straw man absolute version was “debunked.”
The theory that different areas of the tongue tasted different things—the Tongue Map—has been pretty thoroughly debunked but lived for aboutt a century. This seems like something fairly easily testable.
Bullet lead analysis gained scientific acceptance and stuck around for forty years; it still is viewed as good science by many, although its probative value may have been overstated.
Bruise aging was accepted for a shorter period of time, but appears almost worthless. This was another testable hypothesis that lasted longer than it should have.
I don’t have particularly smart things to say about why these errors lasted while others were destroyed by truth. Perhaps someone else does.
AIUI, different areas of the tongue do have different concentrations of the various sensors. The tongue map taken literally as “you taste salt only here, sweet only here, bitter only there” is wrong, but that the different areas represented are indeed more sensitive.
Thanks for the tip-off about the Tongue Map. I’m afraid it’s still being presented as serious knowledge. I’ll go to bed slightly wiser tonight.
Nitpick: I would appreciate those things even more with a link. (Upvoted nonetheless.)
By bruise aging do you mean this? Where would one go to verify it has been discredited?
When I was in elementary school—must have been a year when I was attending a good one—we did an experiment where we tasted things with different parts of our tongue. It was experimentally verified by us that the way things tasted depended on the region. And then we ate an apple while smelling an onion, and compared the sensations of immersing our hands in hot water or ice water separately and simultaneously.
Interesting.
Was this experiment done before you learned the tongue map? Have you tried it again?
Suggestibility affects taste significantly; see the wine tasting experiment, and the well-known visual component of eating. Very fine chefs sometimes cannot identify ingredients just by tasting them (see: Top Chef Masters.)
Further, this sounds like yet another data point in the need for double blind studies.
Still, it’s nice to see kids involved in experiments of some sort.
I did a mini-experiment before posting the comment. I only had chips on hand, so this was meant to be an experiment with detecting saltiness, while holding my nose. The experiment was difficult to interpret due to uneven salt on the chips, but I decided that while the salt was detected by all parts of my tongue, the taste sensation felt different—from tangy to itchy, depending on the region. I decided that tasting was “complicated”—that was my only conclusion.
Yeah, links would have been better. Let’s see if I get the format right.
Try this for bruising.
Tongue map and bullet lead analysis are in wikipedia, and both (as of yesterday) looked like reasoned articles to me, though the statistical confusion in bullet lead analysis is not well laid out.
Yeah, I thought the Tongue Map was true as well. I found a short article talking about it at Scientific American. Are they reputable?
Scientific American? Yes. It’s been a standard pop-sci magazine for decades, although in the last twenty years or so it has become much less rigorous. The reporting should be accurate, though.
Not anymore.
Are you suggesting that its science reporting is now at the New York Times Magazine level, or something more severe?
Probably not that low, but not very good, either.
You’re just saying that because of their position on grober crimate change.
In fairness, I think the issue is way overplayed. How exactly would it interfere with wire metal forming methods or helping people adapt to Office? I don’t get it.
Well, if it gets too warm, all the world’s paperclips could melt into undifferentiable masses.
Okay, what the hell is up with the moderators here? I wasn’t calling “User:Alicorn” ridiculous for suggesting that paper clips can melt. I mean, come on, give me a little credit here. Not to brag, but I think I know a little about this kind of thing...
Ahem. Anyway, what I was saying is, yes, paperclips can melt, but you need a LOT more than grober crimate change to melt them all into an undifferntiable mass, okay? Like, even if you set every coal vein on fire, AND filtered out the particulate matter to prevent cooling effects, you STILL wouldn’t make the planet hot enough to melt all paper clips together for over a hundred years.
That is what is riduclous.
Don’t be ridiculous.
I think we are approximately in agreement on this point.
The wikipedia article makes it look like it’s basically true and that a straw man absolute version was “debunked.”
But the strawman absolute version is what was (is?) taught.