Mm mm good.

Several decades ago, McDonald's began mass producing its food. And as mass production requires speed and efficiency, McDonald's began buying frozen french fries instead of peeling fresh potatoes in order to cut down on time. Frozen foods, of course, lack most of the flavor that natural foods contain, and McDonald's wanted to make their fries appealing without slowing down their production. There are, in fact, an enormous amount of factories dedicated to the science of flavor and scent. Scientists found that taste buds, although helpful with taste detection, are very limited in comparison to the human olfactory system. Indeed, "flavor" is essentially the smell of gases being released by the chemicals people ingest, thus making aroma responsible for most of a food's taste. In addition to flavor additives, some companies also use color additives to make processed foods look fresh and appealing. Studies have found that a food's color can greatly affect how its taste is perceived. Brightly colored foods appear to taste better than bland-looking foods, even if the flavor compounds are similar to each other. Many processed foods nowadays offer a blank palette: whatever chemicals are added to them will give them specific tastes. There is hardly even a difference between natural flavors and artificial flavors anymore. They sometimes contain exactly the same chemicals, produced through different methods, but still at the same chemical plants. In summation, there are numerous taste processes that occur in order to make processed food more appealing, and McDonald's french fries are no exception.

One side of the article discusses the negative ramifications of all these processed foods. The canning, freezing, and dehydrating techniques used in mass production destroy most of food's flavor, and mostly artificial additives are used to regain flavor. These additives are just mixtures of volatile chemicals and usually aren't the most healthy. But the other side of the article talks about how amazing the science behind taste is. All of the experiments and studies, involving the olfactory system and food color and so on, are incredibly complex. Personally, I believe it's fascinating to think of all the chemical processes that go into creating a new flavor. I just wish that more natural flavors were used instead of millions of volatile chemicals. If I went to McDonald's, I'd rather drink a milkshake made from real strawberries than from a compound of chemicals, wouldn't you?

The ways of knowing in this situation include sense perception and emotion. Many senses are involved in the process of taste. Smell can affect the perception of taste, and many experiments are conducted on perfumes and chemicals to produce appealing smells. Vision, also, can cause one to notice whether food looks off or unappealing, and cause them to make a decision on whether they want to ingest the food or not. Additionally, emotions can play a part in the situation. A smell can suddenly evoke a long-forgotten moment. For example, imagine that your mother always made apple pie and it made you feel comfortable. If you went away to college, you might be home-sick and purchase a slice of apple pie as "comfort food." This food would influence your emotions and your experience of the food.

A knowledge problem for this situation is figuring out the origins of all of the flavors in food. This affects people like vegetarians, who often have no way of knowing whether a flavor additive contains beef, poultry, or shellfish. Some color additives may even violate a number of religious dietary restrictions, cause allergic reactions in susceptible people, and come from unusual sources (such as acids found in insects). Consumers aren't being given all of the information; if we were, our senses would label the food as unappealing and the companies would never generate any money.

So the knowledge issue is this: To what extent do our senses influence the way that we perceive things?

It's like when you know stuff...but like...it turns out you don't...whatever.

A few days prior to the start of the school year, I decided to drive over to Staples and buy school supplies. My dad accompanied me because he also needed office supplies at Staples. We split up and as I finished putting all of my supplies in the shopping cart, I spotted my dad near the printer section. I ran over to him and tapped him on his shoulder. Much to my surprise, however, the man who turned around was not my father. I mumbled an apology and walked away in embarrassment.

The ways of knowing in this situation include sense perception, reason, and emotion. My sense of vision caused me to believe that a complete stranger was actually my father. The rods and cones in my retina matched up the stranger's appearance with the familiarity of my father's appearance, and this observation deceived me into believing that they were both the same person. Deductive reasoning was also used in the thinking process. My dad has black hair, was wearing khakis, and a plain T-shirt. The stranger had black hair, was wearing khakis, and a plain T-shirt. From these observations, I reasoned that they were the same person. Additionally, emotions played a part in the situation. An emotional person is unlikely to see clearly or to reason well, and in most cases, emotions are not a reliable guide to the truth. I felt happy to see my dad and I wasn't paying much attention to details. This outburst of emotion caused me to overlook the minutiae and run over to someone who I didn't know.

The knowledge "problem", or the big deal, is that I mistook my father for a complete stranger. I deceived myself into believing that a stranger was actually the same person as my father.

So what are the limitations on the act of observation, and what effects do such limitations have on the consequent decisions we make?