You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
let the right one in
- Thread starter Bwood
- Start date
Sharon Bowman
Sharon Bowman
Sniff. What can I say; sometimes the old toys get left in the toybox. All the fight has gone out of my cauliflower prep work. And people are still drinking Mollydooker with twinkling eyes and a stained smile on their lips.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Thor:
You might as well be.
Look, maybe I'm the only person in the world who thinks this way, though I doubt it. (Actually, I know I'm not, because my wife thinks the same way.) But the statements "X is better than Y" and "I like Y more than X" are not inherently contradictory to me, never have been, and never will be. No matter how many dead people think otherwise.
If you can't, or Kant can't, imagine how that could be, then you and Kant can't. I can't imagine how anyone could like Mollydooker, but people do. And we carry on despite this.
I know that many people think those statements non-contradictory. They achieve that non-contradiction by the reductive meaning of "I like" discussed above, which allows the delusion that some kind of judgment not dependent on liking is going on in the second evaluation. The counter-evidence is quite simple. You really can't appreciate a wine that you find physically revolting. But if liking were as separate as you think from qualitative evaluation, you should be able to.
The Mollydooker example makes Kant's point, not yours. Instead of saying "Canary Wine tastes good to me," they are saying "Mollydooker tastes good to me." You can't imagine it because pleasures are opaque. Your disagreement with Kant, and most everyone else except a handful of wine geeks who think they can make a science out of what they do, is to think that despite that, you can coherently make an objective qualitative evaluation of wine.
But you are right that we have had this argument before. My point originally was that your original criticism of VLM failed to make sense of his statement, and it still does, and that despite the fact that VLM mostly agrees with you.
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
You have a powerful friend in SP. His OA colophon includes the following phrase: "It's okay to like Salieri more than Mozart, but it's not okay to think that he's better than Mozart."originally posted by Thor:
But the statements "X is better than Y" and "I like Y more than X" are not inherently contradictory to me, never have been, and never will be. No matter how many dead people think otherwise.
We don't agree.I know that many people think those statements non-contradictory. They achieve that non-contradiction by the reductive meaning of "I like" discussed above, which allows the delusion that some kind of judgment not dependent on liking is going on in the second evaluation.
No, I can most certainly appreciate it but not like it, and vice-versa.You really can't appreciate a wine that you find physically revolting. But if liking were as separate as you think from qualitative evaluation, you should be able to.
Actually, you're completely wrong. I, and indeed anyone with training or access to a laboratory, can make an objective and qualitative evaluation of wine. It has nothing to do with preference and everything to do with numbers, is not practiced by any useful critic (professional or amateur) with whom I've familiar, and of course is of absolutely no use to consumers unless they can associate certain numbers with their preferences (e.g. a reflexive dislike of alcohols over N%), but it can be done. It's not what we do here, nor is it what we've been discussing, but it's done all the time...at wineries, in the lab, to award legally-mandated designations at the INAO, and so forth.Your disagreement with Kant, and most everyone else except a handful of wine geeks who think they can make a science out of what they do, is to think that despite that, you can coherently make an objective qualitative evaluation of wine.
Of course, I know that's not what you meant. And on that point, you're wrong again. I don't think I "can coherently make an objective qualitative evaluation of wine." We don't agree on key definitions, and so your reasoning in support of your position is meaningless to me. I don't meant that to be insulting, but it just is.
OK.My point originally was that your original criticism of VLM failed to make sense of his statement, and it still does, and that despite the fact that VLM mostly agrees with you.
You and I are longer friends.You have a powerful friend in SP.
(edit) Unlike Mr. OA, I think it's perfectly "okay" to think X is better than Y or Y is better than X. Why should I care? My ego isn't tied up in the externally-perceived worth of my possessions, like SP's is. So in that sense, I don't agree with SP either.
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
Gosh. Did Coad stop writing him, too?originally posted by Thor:
We're no longer friends.You have a powerful friend in SP.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
In your second paragraph, you say "I, and indeed anyone with training or access to a laboratory, can make an objective and qualitative evaluation of wine." In your third paragraph, you say, "I don't think I 'coherently make an objective qualitative evaluation of wine.'" These sentences are on their face contradictory. Assuming you don't think the difference is the word "coherently" (what would a non-coherent, objective evaluation be?), the problem is obviously the word qualitative. I have no doubt that access to a laboratory can allow reproducible measurements of wine that follow the protocols of science sufficiently to earn the evaluation "objective." I am even, despite your tone, aware that it happens. One can also do various kinds of laboratory analyses of paintings that result in numbers being meaningfully attached to aspects of them. One doesn't usually think, in the case of paintings, that those measurements produce evaluation. I am unsure if you think those numbers in the case of wine will then produce as an inescapable objective consequence a qualitative evaluation. Your first sentence seems to say yes and your second sentence seems to say no. When you decide which of those sentences is the one you meant, we will be able to determine whether we disagree.
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
When someone says "X is better than Y" they may mean "I personally believe that X is better than Y" or they may mean "I believe that the general consensus is that X is better than Y". The latter construction leaves room for "...but I like Y more than I like X". I think this muddiness of meaning is in the language, not in my inexpertise, but what do you say?originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
The counter-evidence is quite simple. You really can't appreciate a wine that you find physically revolting. But if liking were as separate as you think from qualitative evaluation, you should be able to.
I assumed we weren't discussing chemical evaluations in this discussion until I introduced them in my previous post. If we are, then I accept the correction. I and anyone else with the right equipment can make objective assessments. Alcohol, pH, dry extract, sugar, levels of this, that, and the other thing, numerical data on harvest dates, cellar techniques, etc. All perfectly objective.In your second paragraph, you say "I, and indeed anyone with training or access to a laboratory, can make an objective and qualitative evaluation of wine." In your third paragraph, you say, "I don't think I 'coherently make an objective qualitative evaluation of wine.'" These sentences are on their face contradictory.
I had rather assumed we were discussing other types of evaluations, since we were talking (at least in part) about the words "like" and "better" as ways to evaluate wine. Was your understanding otherwise? If so, then I'm sorry, because we were talking at cross-purposes the entire time.
If we're discussing non-chemical evaluations, I can't make objective assessments, because I don't think they can be objective. If we're discussing both kinds of evaluations, then I* can make objective assessments: the chemical kind. I don't know how I can be clearer than that.
*Were I not completely at sea in a chemistry lab.
No tone intended. Apologies if it's perceived.I have no doubt that access to a laboratory can allow reproducible measurements of wine that follow the protocols of science sufficiently to earn the evaluation "objective." I am even, despite your tone, aware that it happens.
Unless you're using an unrecognizably narrow (to me) definition of "evaluation," I don't see how the data that a winery acquires (or that it sends out to a lab to acquire) isn't an evaluation, and an objective one at that. Many, many wineries make viticultural and winemaking decisions based on these evaluations. Not just these evaluations, hopefully, but that doesn't make them non-evaluations. "This wine has X volatile acidity" is an objective evaluation. "I don't like wines with more than Y volatile acidity" is a subjective evaluation. They're both evaluations.One can also do various kinds of laboratory analyses of paintings that result in numbers being meaningfully attached to aspects of them. One doesn't usually think, in the case of paintings, that those measurements produce evaluation.
From which perspective? From an analytical/chemical perspective? Yes, I do. From the perspective of preference? No, I don't.I am unsure if you think those numbers in the case of wine will then produce as an inescapable objective consequence a qualitative evaluation.
originally posted by Thor:
the statements "X is better than Y" and "I like Y more than X" are not inherently contradictory to me, never have been, and never will be..
I think Jeff has a good point. Thor's statements are not contradictory in so far as they imply a number of other qualifications to the statement. I.E. I like Y more 'at this moment' or 'with this food' etc.
Jonathan's critique may hold water with the literal words written by Thor, but I think he's ignoring the larger point. Too much close textual analysis methinks!!
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
When someone says "X is better than Y" they may mean "I personally believe that X is better than Y" or they may mean "I believe that the general consensus is that X is better than Y". The latter construction leaves room for "...but I like Y more than I like X". I think this muddiness of meaning is in the language, not in my inexpertise, but what do you say?originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
The counter-evidence is quite simple. You really can't appreciate a wine that you find physically revolting. But if liking were as separate as you think from qualitative evaluation, you should be able to.
Imagine that, instead of talking about wine, you were talking about whether the species evolved or came into being in their current form (note we are not talking about a religious belief in this form of the argument). "I personally believe that the species evolved," would be interesting information about you, but it wouldn't really tell us anything about the state of the case. "The consensus in the US is that the species came into being in their current form," is a statement the accuracy of which is demonstrable but still irrelevant to the question of whether species evolved or not.
Now, in the case of wine (and perhaps in the case of art, but that's a different problem), the statement "I personally believe that Mollydooker is better than Pepiere," is uncontestably true but doesn't have any consequences. It also, for Thor's argument, waffles over whether the sentence means "personally believe" to be a statement different from "like." The second sentence, "there is a general consensus that Mollydooker is better than Briords," assuming we can agree over what group is reaching a consensus, will again be measurably accurate or inaccurate. But it is still unclear as to whether the information is relevant, though, for some reason, numbers of people think it leads to the sentence "Mollydooker is better than Pepiere."
I'm not sure how any of this solves the problem of "like" and "believe is better." I am claiming, and it is a controversial claim, I recognize, that whereas one can constrain the meaning of "like" so as to make a distinction between those two sentences, a real understanding of what is happening makes the distinction as meaningless as saying "I believe x but I know that belief to be false."
Cory Cartwright
Cory Cartwright
Excellent, thoughtful little movie that would be worth it just for the visual texture alone. The fact that it has to be labeled a "vampire" movie is a shame, and I hope word of mouth continues to overcome this bias.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
Thor,
Well then, I'm not sure why you brought chemical measurements in. You are, of course, right that the word "evaluation" is meaningful in the context of chemistry, but it doesn't really mean the same thing as what we were talking about. If you accept that a)chemical evaluations are distinct from the kinds of evaluations that occur when one says "Mollydooker is a great wine," (that's what I meant by a qualitative evaluation, an evaluation as to its quality in the non-Aristotelian sense, about which the word "better" can be appropriate)and b)those latter kinds of evaluations are non-objective, then in fact we do agree.
On the issue of "liking" vs. "thinking better," I also do understand your position. I think the dispute may be trivial, having to do with terminology, but I register it because it frequently connects with the belief that one can make objective evaluations of the latter kind.
The dispute isn't trivial, though, when you report that you can find a wine revolting and still appreciate it. Obviously, I have to assent to your report. But, assuming we aren't using the word "appreciate" differently, I find it hard to imagine. Stipulating its truth, though, I will now limit my claim to saying that for all those who can't appreciate a wine that nauseates them, there really isn't a difference between liking and thinking good.
It turns out, by the way, that you now disagree with VLM, I think, since I think he thinks that objective evaluation is possible.
Well then, I'm not sure why you brought chemical measurements in. You are, of course, right that the word "evaluation" is meaningful in the context of chemistry, but it doesn't really mean the same thing as what we were talking about. If you accept that a)chemical evaluations are distinct from the kinds of evaluations that occur when one says "Mollydooker is a great wine," (that's what I meant by a qualitative evaluation, an evaluation as to its quality in the non-Aristotelian sense, about which the word "better" can be appropriate)and b)those latter kinds of evaluations are non-objective, then in fact we do agree.
On the issue of "liking" vs. "thinking better," I also do understand your position. I think the dispute may be trivial, having to do with terminology, but I register it because it frequently connects with the belief that one can make objective evaluations of the latter kind.
The dispute isn't trivial, though, when you report that you can find a wine revolting and still appreciate it. Obviously, I have to assent to your report. But, assuming we aren't using the word "appreciate" differently, I find it hard to imagine. Stipulating its truth, though, I will now limit my claim to saying that for all those who can't appreciate a wine that nauseates them, there really isn't a difference between liking and thinking good.
It turns out, by the way, that you now disagree with VLM, I think, since I think he thinks that objective evaluation is possible.
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
Please elaborate on the meaning of the word 'relevant' in that sentence.originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
But it is still unclear as to whether the information is relevant, though, for some reason, numbers of people think it leads to the sentence "Mollydooker is better than Pepiere."
Because you were insisting that one cannot "coherently make an objective qualitative evaluation of wine." I was just pointing out that there is one that can be made, and (though I didn't make this explicit until later) that for some major wine-related purposes, it's the one that actually counts. The word "quality" is even involved as a goal, and in this specific context it's full of objective clarity, but of course it has a very different meaning than the one we've been discussing, and almost no utility for consumers, who are interested in a different definition of "quality."Well then, I'm not sure why you brought chemical measurements in.
I find raw tomatoes revolting. (I find this an extremely depressing flaw, but that's a separate issue.) Yet when in-season heirlooms are placed before me, I'm almost never in disagreement with those who love them about which are preferred. From this I can tentatively conclude that whatever standards I am using to evaluate the tomatoes, they seem unaffected by the revulsion I experience while eating them.The dispute isn't trivial, though, when you report that you can find a wine revolting and still appreciate it.
One might argue that I've merely absorbed others' reactions and learned how to apply them, but while I can't prove that I haven't, I've had this facility since the first time I was first presented with a ripe and high-quality heirloom tomato (not all that many years ago, after a 22-year gap between that and the previous time I'd eaten a raw tomato).
One might also argue that I'm incorrectly conflating group preference and quality. Obviously, I think "quality" in the sense we've been discussing is subjective, and no less so even if it's a majority position. But since I have no other way to judge whether or not my evaluations of raw tomatoes are comprehensible, because I find them revolting no matter how I assess their quality, I don't know what other conclusion to draw, other than that I'm the beneficiary of blind luck. Maybe I'm a tomato savant. (That would be doubly depressing, if so.)
I always did disagree with VLM on this point, since I started by asserting that his "like" and his "innately higher quality" were two different things.It turns out, by the way, that you now disagree with VLM, I think, since I think he thinks that objective evaluation is possible.
Subject to his correction, I believe he's using it as least partially in the Parker-intro-text sense: (paraphrasing) "there are objective standards of quality on which wine experts agree," and so forth. I actually agree with that as long as the word "objective" is removed and the word "most" (or better, "many") is inserted between "which" and "wine". Hence, for example, his insistence that Eric Asimov could be "wrong" about Chinon.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Please elaborate on the meaning of the word 'relevant' in that sentence.originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
But it is still unclear as to whether the information is relevant, though, for some reason, numbers of people think it leads to the sentence "Mollydooker is better than Pepiere."
Good objection to sloppy writing. I meant, that I don't see why a consensus shows anything more about the quality of a wine than it shows about the truth of a proposition.
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
That is interesting.originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I meant, that I don't see why a consensus shows anything more about the quality of a wine than it shows about the truth of a proposition.
If I determine "quality" by measuring "popularity", then I'm home. Right?
I think we need to define terms in order to continue properly.
Cory Cartwright
Cory Cartwright
I take back what I said about this board having fascinating thread drift.
originally posted by Cory Cartwright:
Excellent, thoughtful little movie that would be worth it just for the visual texture alone. The fact that it has to be labeled a "vampire" movie is a shame, and I hope word of mouth continues to overcome this bias.
Visual texture indeed. It's almost the primary appeal, and increasingly that's what draws me in to movies these days. For some reason it reminded me visually of In the Mood for Love. Maybe it's just the green color tones and the underlying emotional tone of the movie.