Posted on 07/14/2022 7:03:28 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Pizza was invented for and/or by American GIs during WWII.
That is sort of a sea story that I have heard repeated many times, but it is not true.
See American Pie, My Search of the Perfect Pizza, Ten Speed Press, 2003, by Peter Reinhart, baking instructor at Johnson & Wales University.
Reinhart notes that his Greek friends insist that pizza was brought to Naples, Italy long ago by Greeks, when Naples was Neapolis instead of Napoli. As for its introduction to the U.S., Reinhart writes, "When Gennaro Lombardi brought pizza to New York City's Lower East Side in 1905, he brought it from Italy; his influence was the pie of Naples."
“Open sandwich” is one of the dumbest terms in the food industry.. If it’s “open”, it is, by definition, NOT a sandwich.
>> ...Pizza crust IS bread. Have you ever made either one? Flour, water, salt, yeast. Maybe a splash of herbs or some other flavor. <<
FFS, Sherlock, no kidding! You’ll note the use of the word, “unqualifiedly” in my first post. It’s bread, but it’s not any bread. You couldn’t slap sauce and cheese on Wonder bread and call it, “pizza.” Pumpkin pie crust is made of those same ingredients; is a pumpkin pie and open-faced sandwich? How about crackers and cheese?
Your guilty of reductionism, here: the belief that something may be adequately described as the sum of its parts.
See this word, here?
“It’s like tasting box wine and claiming that champagne is >>>>just<<<< grape juice.”
Whenever someone uses that word, there’s a good chance they’re about to make the reductionist fallacy.
“The human body is just a combination of a few dollars’ worth of chemicals.”
“The fetus is just a blob of tissue.”
“The Constitution is just a piece of paper.”
Agree
>> Calling pizza crust ‘bread’ isn’t reductivism, it’s what it is. Decribing something using the parts isn’t always a fallacy... Pie crusts usually also include shortening or oils, and typically (as in I have never seen) don’t use yeast, so there’s no rising period. <<
TONS of different types of bread use shortenings or oils or butter or something of the sort. And TONS of different types of bread DON’T have yeast.
But apparently you don’t understand the reductionist fallacy. It’s not falsely claiming something is something that it is not. It’s saying something is the MERE sum of its parts (or, more technically, its antecedents), as if there were nothing transformative in bringing the antecedents together in a necessary, special way.
>> The human body is a collection of (more than) a few dollars of various chemicals. <<
See, this is the ultimate, textbook example of the fallacy of reductionism, so if you use this as an example of what is not the fallacy of reductionism, it’s proof you don’t understand the fallacy. (In fairness to you, the textbook example is a LIVING human body.) See, there’s no way you can separate a living, human body into its constituent parts, and EVER have that be a living, human body. (On the other hand, I’m NOT being unfair to you, because you CERTAINLY can’t make any form of a human body AT ALL out of its constituent chemicals.)
>> You couldn’t slap sauce and cheese on Wonder bread and call it, “pizza.”... Why not? We did it a bunch when we were kids, thought we were crazy clever figuring that out! <<
LOL! That is truly disgusting and proves you don’t have a frickin’ clue about what pizza is. ;-)
>> Also, an “open-face sandwich” is not a sandwich either! <<
I would argue that what makes a sandwich a sandwich is the ability to pick it up by the bread in such a way as the bread prevents your hands from getting messy. The actual definition is debated. I certainly have eaten food sold as “open-faced sandwiches” which fail to meet this definition, such as mounds of gravy-smothered roast beef served on a small piece of white bread. On the other hand, although some foods I would sloppily call “pizza” (such as “medium” or “personal” pizzas) meet that definition, I would argue that although you eat “real” pizza with your hands, you can’t prevent them from getting messy.
Just so no-one calls me on it:
Usually, the fallacy of reductionism refers to deconstructing an argument into its constituents and then proceeding as if the result were the same as the constructed argument. When people refer to the fallacy of reductionism in the context of deconstructing an object, what’s being attacked is the implicit argument that there is no further antecedent to the object necessary: a pizza is made out of bread, a sauce, and cheese, so therefore if you have bread, a sauce and cheese, you have a pizza. The missing antecedent is that you must take a special kind of bread and cheese and assemble the ingredients in a specific manner.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.