It's still complicating it for no reason. It's trivially easy to buy the proper oil and not use a spray oil with random stuff added to it to keep it spray-able. It's like not washing your test tubes out before conducting an experiment. It introduces additional variables and complexity for no good reason. Do you really expect the author to test for every single random additive from every single random spray oil producer and see if it affects the process? It's a waste of time when the proper process is easy... just use real unadulterated oil.
Meh, a simple "we already had a full docket to test with our main goals and didn't want to allocate the time to try any spray oils" is more than adequate.
And you are doing a bit of goal post shifting. Nobody is asking to try all ingredients and isolate everything. But it was never even established that a spray oil wouldn't work. Just speculation as to why it wouldn't.
I will throw out that, for myself, I think the majority of the effort that most people go through with their cast irons is for cosmetic purposes and failing to realize that we use much milder soaps today than we used to. If you want a decently seasoned cast iron skillet, just commit to using it consistently. Will it be pretty? Probably not. But it will work just fine.
> Meh, a simple "we already had a full docket to test with our main goals and didn't want to allocate the time to try any spray oils" is more than adequate.
The thing is, there's not one 'spray oil additive' that everyone uses they could even test. They could just say: "Spray oils use additives that could complicate this process and each spray oil is different. We didn't test them and don't recommend that you use them. Using real, unadulterated oil is simple, proven, and effective."
I can't comment on the effectiveness of the overall process of seasoning a skillet, nor was I.
It doesn't matter that there are multiple additives. It hasn't been established that any additives affect things. (Or, again, if it has been established, cite.)
That is, you are commenting on the process. Specifically, you are saying that spray oils are bad for it. And then giving a quick (and appealing) argument for it. However, the question is when and how was this established.
Incorrect. I said specifically that spray oils 'could' complicate the process and that they didn't test for it. That's all. You're reading the rest into it yourself. I never once said that additives affect things.
Additives are a random addition that serve no purpose in the process of seasoning a cast iron pan. They didn't test for throwing a handful of salt or baking soda in either. Nor should they. There's no need.
The point of this thread is that they should either a) test for it, b) acknowledge that they didn't test for it, or c) cite some place that has. To dismiss it as a bad idea with no reason is precisely the topic of this thread.
You brought up that it would complicate things. Of course it would, but that is basically beside the point.
Edit: apologies, I should say with no evidence, not reason.
You do realize you just took this in a full circle, right?
It was agreed at the beginning that the argument is compelling. To the point that there really isn't much concern with this one occurrence, but that it happens throughout the article.
Does it make for a good read? Sure. Probably is even good advice on a good technique. What it is not, is "science."
That is, specifically, this entire thread was because someone was pedantic that this shouldn't be called "science" as it was presented. And it should be noted that many of us agreed. To the point that the thread was renamed on HN.
The only reason I removed my comment is because I determined that it wasn't worth continuing as it seemed you were 'arguing past me' about a different point than the one I was making. You hadn't yet replied when I deleted it. It seems you are continuing to argue against a position I never took up in this comment here. I don't care about the article, personally. And I don't think the article is 'scientific', even if they cite and follow certain 'science' aspects at different points. I never claimed that it was. So, I'm unsure why you keep arguing against a point that I am not making when I agree with you that the original article isn't 'science' and that science doesn't belong in the title.
I had responded to your nitpick with one specific point where I think you are incorrect. There's no reason for the original authors to have to do anything at all related to additives. They don't need to test for additives, they don't need to cite that they are harmful. It's enough for them to state that they did not use them and why they recommend against them. Which they did. Additives are a completely unnecessary complication in the process of seasoning. Just as a contamination would be an unnecessary complication to a science experiment (please note again that this is an analogy and in no way means I believe the article is 'science-based'). There's no reason at all for the additives to be there. And no reason for the authors to test for them or cite anything related to them. The same as there's no reason to test or cite how well it works with the presence of dirt, salt, sand, baking soda, or moon rocks. That is the one point I was making. I will not be replying again as this is a poor use of time.
