Does blowing on our hot food before we put it into our mouths actually make a difference to how hot it is?

Yes, it does. By blowing over it, you evaporate some of its water, which cools it down. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_vaporization

Thank you.
I think I saw a show 20 or so years ago that tried to debunk this and obviously either they messed up, or I wasn't paying attention.
(The show was called Brainiac).
- You've been unclear on a fundamental concept of basic physics for ~20 years? Because a TV show said so? 😶

Air cooled engines quite literally stay cool by being blown on.

You can test your hypothesis of "no, it doesn't" pretty easily. Feel free to report back with results and method used.

Methods:
Make a cup of Hot Chocolate
Get two spoons, put them in your hot chocolate to warm up to remove the variable of heat transferring into the spoon.
Take one spoon out, fill it up, blow on it for a few seconds, then put it in your mouth.
Take the second one out, leave it out for the same amount of time you would have if you had blown on it, then put it in your mouth.
Report on temperature difference. If you had an instant-read thermometer you could even be more certain of the results.

It does. Heat conduction is faster when the temperature difference is large. Air soaks up a lot of heat, so still air is a poor heat conductor. If you're blowing it around, you're increasing the amount of fresh, colder air that can interact with the food.

One spoonful and a couple of breaths is small enough stuff to have a relatively small effect and a lot of error margin, though.

I would think it does, because you are blowing comparatively cold air on it, which will transfer some heat out of the food.

It works well enough for CPUs and graphics cards.

Convection says yes.

Yes, it does

It doesn't beg the question, Mr Tyson. Stick to boxing.

To supplement this comment, I googled things:
Using the phrase "begs the question" to mean "raises the question" is a common misuse of the term. In academic and professional writing, "begs the question" actually refers to a logical fallacy where a statement assumes the truth of the conclusion it is attempting to prove. To avoid confusion, it's best to use "raises the question" when you want to indicate that something prompts or suggests a question.
An example:
"Vintage furniture is better than new furniture because it’s usually made from real wood."
This statement relies on the assumption that real wood is the superior material for furniture. However, nothing in this claim explains why that’s the case, so it begs the question, “What makes real wood better than other materials?”
I don't understand the Mike Tyson reference though.
- I assume Mr Tyson refers to Neil degrasse Tyson in this case since it's a science question but not sure why he's relevant in this case.

I'm thinking that no, it doesn't.

You can literally see the difference (not to mention feel it). The amount of steam coming off the food after blowing on it is less.

Also, you're misusing the phrase "begs the question." It doesn't mean "leads me to a question."

You're right. But in the interest of no stupid questions I thought I'd ask anyway, because...you know, what if?.
And thanks for the grammar lesson, I didn't ask for that one but I'll take it on board.
It doesn’t mean “leads me to a question."
It does, though. In fact, that's considered the primary definition, per Merriam-Webster.
Begging the question means "to elicit a specific question as a reaction or response," and can often be replaced with "a question that begs to be answered." However, a lesser used and more formal definition is "to ignore a question under the assumption it has already been answered." The phrase itself comes from a translation of an Aristotelian phrase rendered as "beg the question" but meaning "assume the conclusion."
It's literally a moot point, all over again.
- That's a case of a dictionary caving to a misuse being so common that it becomes the new norm. If a dictionary claimed "supposively" was an acceptable spelling of supposedly, would that make it correct?

Besides evaporation, blowing on something which is very hot will bring it closer to room (or breath) temperature by removing the air right next to it which has been heated up already and is 'protecting' the hot item a bit from direct exposure to the room air. When you blow that hot air away the hot item then touches the room air and heats that up, which cools it down.

The same applies to cold things, you can melt ice cream for example much faster by blowing on it even if you use a fan instead of hot breath.

The simple answer is that it takes time. You've removed it from the hot pile of food and given it a few moments to cool, surrounded by cooler air.

I bet if you did an experiment where you blow on on spoonful while it waits and with the next one you just pause without the blowing, you'd find little difference between the two experiences.

You know how you wind can make you feel pretty cold even when it's warm outside? The effect is even stronger for food, since the ratio of surface area to volume is bigger, and the temperature difference is much bigger.