Is Wine-Tasting Junk Science?
1–10 of 49 posts
Re: Is Wine-Tasting Junk Science?
#2Spoiler: Yes.
Re: Is Wine-Tasting Junk Science?
#3Spoiler: Yes.
Article: can npr headlines contradict Betteridge's law of headlines? Can this very headline do it?
Re: Is Wine-Tasting Junk Science?
#4Blah blah blah, drink your wine and enjoy it.
If you like it great.
This doesn't mean all aspects are purely taste, like: acidity, tanninity, type of grape, etc
Re: Is Wine-Tasting Junk Science?
#5> The brothers' taste is [...] vindicated by their ability to name and communicate what they notice in the wine, and to enable us to come to notice it, too.
But that's the point of calling it "junk". What they notice (and thusly communicate) about the wine often simply isn't there. They certainly do "notice" things, but what they notice is often imaginary.
A good bottle of wine can certainly be enjoyed. It's a question of where they enjoyment stems from, and how much credence we put in the idea of some wines being significantly different and better than others.
Re: Is Wine-Tasting Junk Science?
#6I'll just throw this whisky tasting link in for contrast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Boj33DVSILQ
Re: Is Wine-Tasting Junk Science?
#7Wine tasting as layment know it and as the connoisseurs know it is a little different. Or as a sommelier knows it, rather.
I like wine generally, but most of what I know of it comes from the documentary Somm, (on Netflix) - a sommelier's job is to tell a story - and to do this s/he must very knowledgeable and articulate about wine, its history, and its present. The history is basically a memory test, tasting wine is articulating what the drinker might experience in words, and having a palate honed enough to determine exactly what the wine is and where it's from.
All three, except the articulation, are verifiable quantitative tests. Even the during articulation the sommelier cannot stray too far from what is conventionally accepted.
I'm not harping too much on the sommelier service test, because the article is about wine tasting, but other sides apply. People train themselves to learn about wines in detail, and to differentiate wines right down to the highest level of classification and regionality just by just smell and taste alone.
Re: Is Wine-Tasting Junk Science?
#8> The brothers' taste is [...] vindicated by their ability to name and communicate what they notice in the wine, and to enable us to come to notice it, too. But that's the point of calling it "junk". What they notice (and thusly communicate) about the wine often simply isn't there. They certainly do "notice" things, but what they notice is often imaginary. A good bottle of wine can certainly be enjoyed. It's a questi…
Sure some are better than others. Some batches of coca cola are better than others. The 'junk' comes in when the expert starts naming imaginary features and rating them.
Re: Is Wine-Tasting Junk Science?
#9It's actually quite impressive what a master Sommelier can do. S/he can taste a wine, tell you the varietal, tell you the region it was made and the year it was produced. The flowery language behind describing the wines is for the person the Sommelier is explaining the wine to.
I highly recommend the documentary Somm [0]. It's not an easy thing to become a master wine taster.
Re: Is Wine-Tasting Junk Science?
#10> The brothers' taste is [...] vindicated by their ability to name and communicate what they notice in the wine, and to enable us to come to notice it, too. But that's the point of calling it "junk". What they notice (and thusly communicate) about the wine often simply isn't there. They certainly do "notice" things, but what they notice is often imaginary. A good bottle of wine can certainly be enjoyed. It's a questi…
Sure some are better than others. Some batches of coca cola are better than others. The 'junk' comes in when the expert starts naming imaginary features and rating them.
Yes. I should elaborate on what I mean by "how much credence". We have an entire industry built up not just around wine, but around _tasting_ wine - judging it, speaking about it, writing about it, etc. It seems that, while some wine will certainly be better than others, the degree of difference from one quality wine to the next, and the amount of significance we ascribe to it is where the debate should really lie.