There are a few interesting books floating around now about the nexus
of wine and philosophy: "Question of Taste: The Philosophy of Wine"
edited by Barry Smith, and "Wine and Philosophy: A Symposium on
Thinking and Drinking" edited by Fritz Allhoff.

Barry Smith has some interesting things to say about whether wines
have an "objective" taste, or whether are experiences of them are
purely subjective. I find this pretty heady stuff given how much
authority people now give to wine experts, especially those wielding
numerical scales. It seems people really want an authority figure.

Anyway, my idle thoughts on this topic are he
www.lawandstyle.ca/shortcellar

I wonder what other people think.

Matthew

>>
> His main concern is whether the experience of wine is subjective and unique to each individual, or whether the wine has an objective taste that can be shared among people who know what to look for. Can anyone be "right" when giving judgment about a wine?
>
> Though this question may seem academic, a lot of money rides on whether we can depend on wine experts to give us objective evaluations of the quality of wine.
<<

> I wonder what other people think.

I think peoples' experience of any sensory pleasure, be it art, music, wine, food, sex, or even a good night's sleep (hmm... interesting progression is very much influenced by the person's mindset and environment at the time. When I drink wine, I am doing so in a =context=, and that context is providing the background for whatever flavors and aromas the wine will be teasing me with. Like the background of a painting, it cannot be separated from the foreground subject so as to say "=this= amount of pleasure in viewing the painting came from the way the clouds play against the blue sky, and =that= amount of pleasure came from the expression on the horse's face, and to that we add =this other= amount of pleasure due to the placement of the horizon line.

Yes, these things can be analyzed - they do that all the time in art school (with a certain degree of... beef by-products in the mix). But pleasure (and pain) is not additive. Cut and paste the horse from this painting into that painting, moving the girl from that painting to this one, and you do not get the same amount of joy. There is synergy in any artwork.

The same is true for a dining experience, and for a glass of wine. There is an objective base (dry, tannic, spicy...) but to turn that into pleasure requires context. Some of that context even has a name ("acquired taste"), and our ability to acquire a taste in the first place implies an ability, in fact, a need, to adjust our perception of pleasure to fit expectations.

Relating this back to the Caltech experiment... (too bad one can't crosspost to threads)...

If I am told that this is wine x and that is wine y, I may prefer wine x. I am thinking in the present. But if I am told that wine y is one of the finest examples of a classic Bordeaux wine, I am likely to give it another chance in my evaluation. It =should= be a wine I might prefer, and I'll more actively seek out, and find, its good points. Or at least points of interest, which I may (over time) decide are good points, or not, but the question isn't asked later - it's asked =now=, when I'm giving this wine y another chance.

My mind is =not= being objective when I do this, but it's not trying to be objective.

People do tend (and this has been verified in many experiments) to go with other people's opinions when asked to express their own. I suspect it's part of what makes us social creatures (or pack animals, depending on your take). This is especially true when one takes away a lot of the first order information that is being judged. In the Caltech experiment, we have neophytes (how many college students are sophisticated about wine at that age?) who are sipping through a straw while lying down (no nose, probably ineffective swirling, no decent context of wine enjoyment) while being given other sources of pleasure at the same time, which are not being controlled for (in fact, that may be the point of the experiment).

I look forward to reading the report, but suspect it will not be as enlightening as it might have been.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Jan 16, 2:21*pm, Short Cellar > wrote:
> There are a few interesting books floating around now about the nexus
> of wine and philosophy: "Question of Taste: The Philosophy of Wine"
> edited by Barry Smith, and "Wine and Philosophy: A Symposium on
> Thinking and Drinking" edited by Fritz Allhoff.
>
> Barry Smith has some interesting things to say about whether wines
> have an "objective" taste, or whether are experiences of them are
> purely subjective. I find this pretty heady stuff given how much
> authority people now give to wine experts, especially those wielding
> numerical scales. It seems people really want an authority figure.
>
> Anyway, my idle thoughts on this topic are hewww.lawandstyle.ca/shortcellar
>
> I wonder what other people think.
>
> Matthew

Concerning people wanting an authority figure, I think that is good.

In any art form, I feel that there has to be an authority figure who
can explain definitions and who also can serve as an arbiter of
disagreements and disputes.

With regard to numerical scales, they can serve as a foundation for
the more basic standards of evaluation which are more easily expressed
objectively and therefore are more helpful to the beginner who
probably finds the world of wine overwhelming.

However, concerning the higher less objective standards of evaluation:

- Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that
counts can be counted.

Albert Einstein

On Jan 16, 2:21*pm, Short Cellar > wrote:
> There are a few interesting books floating around now about the nexus
> of wine and philosophy: "Question of Taste: The Philosophy of Wine"
> edited by Barry Smith, and "Wine and Philosophy: A Symposium on
> Thinking and Drinking" edited by Fritz Allhoff.
>
> Barry Smith has some interesting things to say about whether wines
> have an "objective" taste, or whether are experiences of them are
> purely subjective. I find this pretty heady stuff given how much
> authority people now give to wine experts, especially those wielding
> numerical scales. It seems people really want an authority figure.
>
> Anyway, my idle thoughts on this topic are hewww.lawandstyle.ca/shortcellar
>
> I wonder what other people think.
>
> Matthew

I would like to react to the following:

- ...His main concern is whether the experience of wine is subjective
and unique to each individual, or whether the wine has an objective
taste that can be shared among people who know what to look for. Can
anyone be "right" when giving judgment about a wine?

Concerning the question, "Can anyone be 'right' when giving judgment
about a wine?", I would say 'of course' just as anyone can be wrong
about their judgment. As far as I am concerned, an art form cannot
exist once people being start believing that there is no such thing as
an error.

Getting back to that statement, I feel that the key phrase is
"...people who know what to look for."

Only an authority can not only show you what to look for, but also
where to look for it. And also only an authority can tell you what
matters (or matters more) and doesn't matter (or matters less).

Also, only an authority can explain what an ideal aesthetic experience
is and how far and in what way the wine you are tasting is from the
ideal.

I believe that if an aesthetic experience is evaluated using a
systematic procedure, you become aware of things you never noticed
before.

On Jan 18, 7:00*pm, " >
wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2:21*pm, Short Cellar > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > There are a few interesting books floating around now about the nexus
> > of wine and philosophy: "Question of Taste: The Philosophy of Wine"
> > edited by Barry Smith, and "Wine and Philosophy: A Symposium on
> > Thinking and Drinking" edited by Fritz Allhoff.
>
> > Barry Smith has some interesting things to say about whether wines
> > have an "objective" taste, or whether are experiences of them are
> > purely subjective. I find this pretty heady stuff given how much
> > authority people now give to wine experts, especially those wielding
> > numerical scales. It seems people really want an authority figure.
>
> > Anyway, my idle thoughts on this topic are hewww.lawandstyle.ca/shortcellar
>
> > I wonder what other people think.
>
> > Matthew
>
> I would like to react to the following:
>
> - ...His main concern is whether the experience of wine is subjective
> and unique to each individual, or whether the wine has an objective
> taste that can be shared among people who know what to look for. Can
> anyone be "right" when giving judgment about a wine?
>
> Concerning the question, "Can anyone be 'right' when giving judgment
> about a wine?", I would say 'of course' just as anyone can be wrong
> about their judgment. *As far as I am concerned, an art form cannot
> exist once people being start believing that there is no such thing as
> an error.
>
> Getting back to that statement, I feel that the key phrase is
> "...people who know what to look for."
>
> Only an authority can not only show you what to look for, but also
> where to look for it. *And also only an authority can tell you what
> matters (or matters more) and doesn't matter (or matters less).
>
> Also, only an authority can explain what an ideal aesthetic experience
> is and how far and in what way the wine you are tasting is from the
> ideal.
>
> I believe that if an aesthetic experience is evaluated using a
> systematic procedure, you become aware of things you never noticed
> before.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If the judgment of wine has anything to do with aesthetics, the
following recent article says:

- Normative sciences, such as logic and aesthetics, seek to establish
the right way of doing things.

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=13547&t=The+moral+of+politics%3A+'T he+lesser+of+two+evils'

wrote:

> If the judgment of wine has anything to do with aesthetics, the
> following recent article says:
>
> - Normative sciences, such as logic and aesthetics, seek to establish
> the right way of doing things.
>
> http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=13547&t=The+moral+of+politics%3A+'T he+lesser+of+two+evils'

I am writing a response to the various posts you've made. I can agree
with you only insofar as tasting becomes a technical activity.
Winemakers and oenologists taste wine looking for its technical aspects:
acidity, balance, structure, perceived sweetness, etc. These are
judgments about a wine's technical merits and rest on commonly agreed
principles. On the other hand, most wine drinkers taste for aesthetic
reasons in which the terms "right" and "wrong" have no meaning. Someone
who loves White Zinfandels for their sweetnees, lack of acidity and
simplicity are no more or less correct in their judgment than a Burgundy
lover who looks for the smell of flowers, leather and blood in their
wine. Here's a primer for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics

Mark Lipton
--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com