Halacha

He argues against swallowing utensils mainly
that our sense of taste is greatly weakened and therefore even if we use utensils that certainly swallow and spit, such as wooden utensils, we will not feel the taste.
Therefore, the experiments, which show that utensils do not swallow, are irrelevant because there is a taste that is felt by people who have sharp senses. And it is not necessary to abolish the prohibition. But our senses are not sharp enough.
What do you think?

I also found in this:
For example, a spoonful of milk in a cauldron - for the purpose of making the dish milky (I intentionally take a permissive approach, which is up to each person to test for themselves), or a drop of stew on the outside, or cutting something spicy with a knife, etc., etc., in all of which I am assured that neither you nor I nor anyone else present here will be able to feel a hint of taste through such a test.

A strange argument to me. In any case, even if he is right, why shouldn't the laws of swallowing be determined according to our taste but according to the taste that once existed? What's more, as far as I understand, the experiments tested the amount of swallowing and not the taste (whether there is sixty or not, etc.).

3 good arguments in 3 lines This is probably the message with the optimal ratio. Forgive me, etc.

Forgive me for dwelling on the subject, but three good arguments in three lines is a really successful ratio.

But if it gives a taste [and let's assume that one measures according to the Sages' mark] even if there are not sixty, it is forbidden.
No?

First, this is a dispute between the first: http://hala.s196.upress.link/11148/
Second, the experiment showed that there is no taste and there is no sixty, therefore it is permissible.

And another comment on the previous discussion, the fact that there is a taste in sixty does not have to be in all types of foods. After all, it clearly depends on the dominance of the taste that is being eliminated (the minority). When they discussed sixty, they were talking about certain foods, and therefore I do not see a need for the conclusion that you have drawn today that the sense of taste is different.

In the past, I heard an argument that today the density of the material is so high that there is almost no point in swallowing it, unlike in the past when a larger amount was swallowed.
And just evidence from the law of spices that they allowed to grind on Yom Tov because the taste of a spice that is ground today is not the same as that ground the evening of Yom Tov, a taste diagnosis that most cooking experts photographed on boxes of pots and pans will not notice.

And what the Rabbi said about the dominance of taste is probably what they said from David to Ta'ma, not from the Tel.
As explained here
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%93%D7%91%D7%A8_%D7%93%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%99%D7%93_%D7%9C%D7%98%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%90

I really don't know the issue,
But I think there are dishes that you can really feel that they are absorbing and this is plastic dishes for example (some less and some more). If you put a hot dish like vegetable soup in a simple plastic pan, you will see very well how much it absorbs, and the smell remains there despite a lot of cleaning and brushing… Is it possible that dishes were once like that too?

Also, nowadays in general I think that cleaning is much stronger than it used to be because of dish soap. I don't know how dishes were cleaned in the past, but if it is without anything or with a little sand to rub, then for the sake of argument it is easy to understand why dishes used to be “absorbing”. And in contrast, boiling water “ejects” it.

Is it so exaggerated to say that the power of disgust is weaker than the power of dish soap?
Rabbi, do you think that it is possible to “disgust” Or even bleach dishes with caustic soda after soaking?….

You should ask whoever conducted the experiments whether they tested plastic.
The question is not just one of cleanliness but also one of swallowing (and the spoilage of the swallowed taste).
I don't know.