Sorry, I hadn’t noticed the second page when I posted that. That was a response to the question “what if you get a little too much on the scale when you’re weighing?”.
Which is all nice and good if you’re talking about cooking (as one half of the people in this thread do), and also, if you have a few decades of experience and feel it’s fun to improvise.
For many people, cooking is not a fun hobby, but a complicated task they’re trying to learn for health or economy reasons. They need exact, detailed recipes for beginners, not shorthands and rough guides for masters.
And your attitude will bite you if we are talking about baking, as the other half of people in this thread do, who have pointed out that bakeries use exact weight. If the professionals do, they probably have a good reason.
Actually, no. One of the things that beginners need to learn with their first experience is that cooking doesn’t require you to be precise. In fact, I’m willing to bet that the very idea of precision prevents people from trying in the first place or makes them freeze up and prematurely give in.
In my very first post I said I am not talking about baking. So all of you bakers can just take your baking and put a sock in it. 
Baking is a specialized science that people who are cooking for health or economy reasons really don’t need to be getting involved with.
With a digital scale, weight is much easier to use. If I get a recipe that calls for water, I usually weigh it out. I sure as hell don’t screw around sifting flour to normalize it for a recipe.
If you pour liquid into a measuring cup, you don’t always stop at the line you want. So you have to pour the stuff back in the original container. The problem is made worse by the fact that while you are pouring the stuff back, the measuring cup is no longer level, so you have to re-level it to see whether you’ve achieved your goal. If you’re not having problems with having to make such adjustments often, it’s probably for the same reason that people using scales don’t – you just get used to getting it just right. It’s really not a problem.
In America, there is a problem in that most recipes or instructions on packages specify things in the less useful units. That sometimes means either you suck it up and just use the inconvenient method of measurement, or get to know the equivalents.
Allrecipes.com does conversion to metric units, but it’s not clear what tables they’re using for converting things of different densities.
No, I don’t. Most of the time, it’s not necessary to get it “just right” for everyday cooking (baking is not cooking). If I don’t quite hit the mark, I just shrug my shoulders and call it close enough.
Oh come on - an inexperienced cook is just gonna magically know that it’s OK to put in half an onion instead of a whole one, but that winging the measurements when it comes to making a roux could be problematic? I’ve cooked with non-cooks, and they get frustrated because they don’t know what they don’t know. For them, the difference between a small onion versus a medium onion could be just as recipe-blowing as the difference between using, say, milk instead of cream in a sauce that contains an acid (to the non-cooks: milk will curdle, cream will not). You have to have a certain amount of skill and knowledge to know what you can mess with and what you can’t, and for someone who may have screwed up a dish by experimenting, precise measurements are really welcome.
Way back when I was first learning to cook, I remember looking at vegetables and wondering what they meant by “1 small” or “a large bunch” or “a sprig or two” and worrying that I would screw something up if I was wrong, especially if I were having people over, or if I was tired and hungry and just wanted to be done so I could eat.
What? Are we just making up reasons not to like the other method now? Scales don’t need to go in the dishwasher. The measuring receptacle, which is by design always detachable from the mechanical or electronic part of the scale (so you can tip the weighed things into a mixing bowl or pan), is washable.
Now, now. She has already given the one and only reason for using volume instead of weight:
That’s how she learned it in good old US (USA! U S A! Number one!), which is the only standard worth knowing about. So any other method is of course complicated, inferior and so on, as all things European/ non-American.
And she doesn’t bake, and cooking is for creativity, not following some detailed instructions. You don’t want to curb her free spirit, would you? 
Noted the distinction between baking and cooking. If you’re cooking, you probably just hardly need to measure anything at all - so it’s pretty irrelevant to the question of whether volume or weight is more convenient.
No, they mentioned having different scales on the same cup. I have a measuring jug like that too, which does show volume (ml of a fluid) as well as mass (flour and sugar).
Anyway, I’m sure that people in the US get accustomed to what a cup of flour looks and feels like, so they don’t need to tentatively check every time; same with mass.
For consistent results with baking, weight measure is superior to volume measure. Many things affect baked goods, including barometric pressure, humidity, etc., not to mention ham-handedness when volume measuring. Weighing dry ingredients takes any guesswork out of things.
First of all, I’m not a “she.”
Second of all, all that stuff about creativity and free spirit is stuff you made up. Cooking is for getting cooking done, and excessive precision interferes with getting it done.
Wouldn’t humidity affect weight of flour, for example? Probably not by as much as volume, but I would think it would have to absorb some moisture.
Uh-huh?
For most of my baking, I don’t need precision. Especially WRT the amount of flour, because the moisture content and the gluten content of the flour varies. I never measure the flour when I’m making yeast bread. I’ve got a ratio between liquid and yeast, everything else is added on a “feels right” basis. And then add flour to nice consistency, whatever the amount. And don’t even get me started on egg sizes!
IMNSHO, that “baking is a science and requires precise measures” thing is a g*ddarned myth. But then, for the last 20 years I’ve regarded any recipe as approximate guidelines. And I generally receive praise for my cooking.
Cooking by weight is awesome if you want consistency. For example, when I make sausages, I have all my ingredients expressed as a percentage of the meat weight. For example, here’s a sample of my own bratwurst recipe: 2.25% salt, 0.35% caraway, 0.30% mace, 0.35% white pepper, 0.20% marjoram. (plus some milk or water). This makes it easy to scale and provides consistent results.
For most day-to-day recipes, though, that level of precision is unnecessary, but it does require a little bit of experience, so I do understand where a beginning cook may go wrong. HOWEVER, my own cooking got better when I stopped trying to precisely measure every little thing in a recipe, and follow time guidelines, but instead learned to trust my own sense. I’m not advocating a “Jedi” approach to cooking, just to trust your own instincts.
I’m also in the camp that feels “baking is a science” is a bit exaggerated. There is some truth to it, but it’s overstated. I reached a breakthrough in my doughs when I stopped following the recipes so precisely, but instead went by what felt and looked right to me. Obviously, you need to work from a starting point and learn for yourself what “feels” right, so a basic guideline is necessary as a beginner.
Exactly correct. But a cup of flour will weigh more or less, depending on moisture content, which means inconsistent results (especially on large batches). On the other hand, a pound of flour is a pound of flour. There may be more of it by volume if the weather is dry, but it’s still a pound and that’s a good thing.
I think we are talking a little at cross purposes here. If you weigh a “pound of flour” in high humidity you won’t be getting the same thing as a “pound of flour” in low humidity. There will be more moisture in the pound that you weighed in high humidity, and so, surely less of the proteins etc in the flour that are needed for the baking process.
I am totally on board that the volume effect will be greater, but wouldn’t there be some weight effect too because of moisture absorbtion?
There really isn’t any great overall advantage. One system may be preferable to the other in some circumstances, but on the whole, either works perfectly well – which is why there are two systems.
I doubt that’s the case. I’m fairly sure (though I’ll no doubt be corrected, this being the Straight Dope) that there wasn’t a standard format for recipes until the mid to late 19th century, and that before that (and probably for some time after) most cooks used whatever system of measurement suited them. It just so happened that separate countries settled on different systems, presumably based on what seemed most convenient at the time.
It’s not baking itself that requires precise measurement, it’s consistent results. If you want to make the same cake twice, you need to be able to measure accurately.
The alternative isn’t disaster (and may occasionally be interesting), but accurate measurement is a good way to make the effort invested in perfecting a recipe really pay off.
I think you may going at it a bit backwards, or else we’re saying the same thing in different ways. I’m not weighing a pound of flour; I’m weighing flour until it reaches one pound on the scale. It will take less flour to reach one pound in higher humidity than in lower humidity. Less flour requires less liquid to be added to obtain the correct dough consistency.
I think the bottom line on mass vs volume is that it provides more consistency in adjusting ingredient amounts to obtain the desired results.