CoPhotoGuy
Senior member
- Nov 16, 2014
- 452
- 0
- 0
The argument was that the touch test is rubbish
But it isn't.
The argument was that the touch test is rubbish
I'm not saying that a thermometer isn't fine. I'm saying that his opinion that the touch test is rubbish and stupid and can't possibly produce steaks that are properly cooked is wrong.
Add in the fact that the OP is a noob with steaks.
^ thisYour opinion is noted, however incorrect it might be. Touch test works perfectly. I can even get newbies to get it right. I'm not poking holes in my steak until it's ready for the knife.
Once again pulling out arguments that were never made.
The argument was that the touch test is rubbish and inferior to thermometers because its extremely inconsistent. Inconsistent methods can still produce good results, just... inconsistently. Point out where I said that it can never produce steaks that are properly cooked.
We have two options.
A) Touch Method.
B) Thermometer.
The thermometer will always get you a objective measure of what doneness a steak is. It will get you a reading in under 4 seconds (or 2 if you go pricier).
Why would you ever go for the touch method? Add in the fact that the OP is a noob with steaks. Once again, what advantage does the touch method ever have where you would ever use it? I prefer to not use inferior methods when cooking. And definitely don't want to recommend inferior methods to people who are new to this particular style of cooking. For the same reason I wouldn't recommend a person use a aluminum pan to cook a steak, I would never recommend the touch test.
There isn't a single reason to prefer the touch method over thermometer, except for some misplaced notion of superiority as a cook or artistic integrity
