Bordeaux

[Christian Miller (CMM)]

originally posted by mark e:

originally posted by Peter Creasey:

It's hard to imagine that Oregon Pinots like Antica Terra, Le Cadeau, and many others might be considered to "lack complexity". Yes, to my atrophied palate, many (most?) of them are more nuanced and subtle than many (most?) California Pinots and tend to come across more Burgundian.

. . . . Pete

People in Oregon love to use the term Burgundian to describe their wines. They are in no way similar except for the name of the grape variety (and Oregon plantings often have a limited number of clones; perhaps that is changing). Compared to California, most are definitely more nuanced and subtle; no argument there. But they don't belong in a discussion about the merits of Nebbiolo from Piedmont, nor red Burgundy.

I disagree with CMM. There are some established parameters to judge wine; it is not just perception: yours vs. mine. Sure wine is not art, so if you argue that the turd under glass is more profound that a Rembrandt, I would be somewhat at a loss to argue that, other than to say we have vastly different aesthetic sensibilities.

I'm with Pete on Oregonian complexity, although (like Burgundy) there are simple ones and complex ones. I agree with mark that they really aren't very similar to Burgundy, they've got their own style, although there are family resemblances due to the grape.

I see mark's point on parameters, and agree on a gut level, although I'd be hard-pressed to come up with an irrefutable argument. But that's a dead horse that has been beaten and stuffed down a rabbit hole, with god knows how many straw men burnt along the way.

 

[Cole Kendall]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
(planet, I am told, means wanderer in some ancient language or another or the word in that language meant that, or something like that, maybe)

πλα?́ν-ης , ητος, ὁ,
A.wanderer, vagabond, ib.1029, E.IT417, Isoc.19.6 : c. gen., πόντου πλάνητες roamers of the sea, Trag.Adesp.100.

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

Because they seemed to wander about the sky, IIRC, in contrast to the stars.

 

[BJ]

I have found that some (not all) of the K and L Bordeaux vintage

 

[Jeff Grossman]

originally posted by mark e:
People in Oregon love to use the term Burgundian to describe their wines. They are in no way similar except for the name of the grape variety (and Oregon plantings often have a limited number of clones; perhaps that is changing). Compared to California, most are definitely more nuanced and subtle; no argument there. But they don't belong in a discussion about the merits of Nebbiolo from Piedmont, nor red Burgundy.

Hearty Burgundian, perhaps?

Can we agree that Oregon has some potential to make complex, elegant wines? Let's say we give it 400-500 years for them to find the best dirt, the best expositions, the best clones, and the best techniques that accommodate the rest. I think that's approximately how long Europe has had since the Carthusians really got rolling on vines and vineyards, give or take a bit.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
Because they seemed to wander about the sky, IIRC, in contrast to the stars.

Yes, that is what I was saying. Retrograde progress among the planets always made the Ptolemaic system messy. It is why there were pre-Christian astronomers who believed in a heliocentric model of the solar system (well, then the universe).

 

[Jayson Cohen]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
Because they seemed to wander about the sky, IIRC, in contrast to the stars.

Yes, that is what I was saying. Retrograde progress among the planets always made the Ptolemaic system messy. It is why there were pre-Christian astronomers who believed in a heliocentric model of the solar system (well, then the universe).

So what you are saying is that Oregon Pinot growers have a heliocentric view of the universe that will evolve eventually, perhaps within ~1500 years, to a better understanding of astrophysics. This makes sense to me.

(If I were in the other place, I would plant the “I am new here!” emoji, but that would put me in the politburo’s next firing squad on WD. Our flexibility here is truly inflexible and emotionally stifling. I’m sad to have to use my words. After all, I have additional senses and sensibilities.)

I do wish this thread, which had such promise, would steer back to actual wine. Bordeaux. Or Italian. Or even Oregon wines that are actually made, as opposed to might be made after the Oregonians have 500 years to discover their terroir and refine their technique.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

Just stipulate that it is theoretically possible that Oregan points might be complex and the sidebar can end. Although I do find the history of science intrinsically interesting, I admit. I'm also completely on board with the politico on emojis.I don't even like the word emoji. I think we should call them stupid pseudo-signy things.

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
Because they seemed to wander about the sky, IIRC, in contrast to the stars.

Yes, that is what I was saying. Retrograde progress among the planets always made the Ptolemaic system messy. It is why there were pre-Christian astronomers who believed in a heliocentric model of the solar system (well, then the universe).

Yes, of course. IIRC deep thinkers of that time developed intricate constructs of the Ptolemaic version to account for these seemingly irregular movements. If your heart is inextricably wedded to an presumption that the earth is the center of the system, because of your faith in divine authority, these constructions are still the best available. The heliocentric model prevails today because of its relative simplicity in a time when such faith is widely subordinated to Occam's razor.

As this discussion relates to complexity, I'd argue objectivity is some intersection of what is actually present in the world outside of ourselves, and our developed capacity to discern it. At the scale of everyday experience accessible to many individuals, and subject to lengthy community discussion, there may be limited room for debate: argument about the fact of the moon appearing diurnally were resolved long ago. More abstract ideas, like the organization the solar system and the determinants of global climate trends, are not so well pinned down. Likewise those ideas less universally discussed, like fine details of flavor and aroma.

Communal discussion and agreement is an important part of the definition: what an individual discerns alone, but his/her peers can't validate, may be delusion or hallucination - or it may reflect unusual development in thought or mental capacity. So at social scale, before a phenomenon is accepted as objectively true, some sort of hundredth monkey threshold must be crossed.

Related to complexity, no consensus prevails on the parameters and measures, at least in part, because the idea is not frequently recognized as essential to success in everyday endeavor, and therefore not widely or frequently discussed. ("Widely and frequently' here are relative to breadth and frequency of discussion of, e.g., the moon, rain, that cup on the table over there, and other such everyday experiences.)

With respect to wine, discussion of complexity is relatively infrequent and without rigor. Among the small set of all people who are explicitly interested in the complexity of wine, therefore, my expectation - as above - would be general agreement (Pete excepted, of course) that there is such a thing; as well as to relative ranking by complexity among a limited set of wines in a common setting. But there's no consensus on the details of complexity, the types, dimensions, and measures of it. At least at my level of expertise: masters of wine and professional sommeliers, for all I know, may have hammered out something like the flavor wheel for complexity, which I don't know about.

As to Oregon wines: are we debating their actual complexity as of now, or their abstract potential in imagined circumstances? I'd thought the former.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

The heliocentric universe stopped being a matter of Occam's razor with, first Copernicus, then the invention of the telescope and Galileo's use of it. Newton pretty much put the nail in the coffin.

The usual definition of objectivity is something that is objectively out there regardless of us. We know it is there when we can find it leaving measurable marks on the world that also don't depend on our perception of them. That's a bar that's high enough so that numbers of people don't believe in it. I have no interest in that argument except to resist lowering the bar so any time enough people get togther and yell loud enough, they can tell themselves they've crossed it. That's what was happening with the response to Pete and it is all I have been arguing against.

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

Yes, but Occam's razor is the essence of all that. If you believe that divine authority trumps simplicity, simplicity of concept is not important, and the solar system still revolves around the earth, whatever it may look like. Newton's conceptualization of gravity, in this perspective, is a deceptive snare, an elegant siren's song, drawing your attention away from the way things really are, to the peril of your soul.

Wasn't this the heart of the quarrel between Galileo and Pope Urban VIII? Such is the power of extreme faith, and we observe the tension between this point of view and others played out today in various dimensions of contemporary society around the world. It is proof to evidentiary arguments, and rebarbative to post-enlightenment rationality.

I don't follow your second para well, especially about people yelling in response to Pete. Sorry. Is it your feeling that some of us are bullying him?

On objectivity, there's a question of whether anything out there, presumed to leave marks on the world, which aren't perceived, can be said to be out there at all; how would we know?

My argument would be that what is perceived changes with time, from the perspective of individuals and of human society in aggregate. There's a question, for example, of whether humans perceived the color blue before they learned to make blue dye - based on evidence such as, e.g., the omission of the word in the Homeric epics. I'd venture further to say that the capacity to perceive things 'out there' is cumulative, especially as the things perceived become more abstract.

According to Agent Mulder, in any event, the truth is out there.

 

[MLipton]

originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons

My argument would be that what is perceived changes with time, from the perspective of individuals and of human society in aggregate. There's a question, for example, of whether humans perceived the color blue before they learned to make blue dye - based on evidence such as, e.g., the omission of the word in the Homeric epics. I'd venture further to say that the capacity to perceive things 'out there' is cumulative, especially as the things perceived become more abstract.

Sorry, Ian, but that notion that the Greeks (and other ancients) didn't see or have words for blue is most likely mistaken. Quora has a good discussion about that idea. Some amount of confusion has arisen over the translation of Homer's term oinops (οἴνοπα) which some translate as "wine-dark" in reference to the sea but which alternatively can be translated as "wine-faced" and may not refer to color at all.

Mark Lipton

 

[Jayson Cohen]

Should we start talking about measurement theory or better yet quantum measurement theory?

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

Ian,
If you believe that what's out there changes over time (in the sense that there once there wasn't blue and now there is) then you don't believe in objectivity. That's fine with me, but then you can hardly that you're or anyone's sense of complexity in burgundy is other than just that, a sense, and no better than anyone else's. If you believe that things are out there but our raw ability to perceive them changes, in the sense that the Greeks seeing the same part of the light spectrum didn't see what we do--didn't see what we call blue--then your position amounts to the same thing with regard to what we say about the world and about complexity in burgundy. You can have reality or you can leave it be, but if you want it, you can't have it only on your terms.

Jayson, this is, alas, not a debate about actual science, in which I would quickly fall by the wayside, but about the philosophy of science, which bears the same relationship to science as military intelligence bears to intelligence.

 

[Christian Miller (CMM)]

originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
With respect to wine, discussion of complexity is relatively infrequent and without rigor. Among the small set of all people who are explicitly interested in the complexity of wine, therefore, my expectation - as above - would be general agreement... as to relative ranking by complexity among a limited set of wines in a common setting.

Even that might be optimistic in this crowd.

posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I have no interest in that argument except to resist lowering the bar so any time enough people get togther and yell loud enough, they can tell themselves they've crossed it.

Based on our current politics, we are approaching that point.

 

[Jayson Cohen]

The notion that actual science (including how it has evolved) does not influence the philosophy of science doesn’t make sense to me. They are intimately linked in the discussion above. Philosophy of science can contemplate what “objectivity” is but only actual science can make it rigorous, bounded, and testable.

Measurement theory is about quantifying what we observe and can observe. It requires defining a measurement of a thing (or ensemble of things) to be measured using a means (or an ensemble of means) to measure the thing. Neither the thing nor the means need be static. Or decoupled. In one view whatever you call objectivity has to be linked to the measurements or ensemble of measurements that can be made in the real world. A thousand people tasting bottles of the same wine looking for feature X and a finding it at the 95% level. Whatever it is.

My metapoint is philosophical: that for objectivity to exist in the real world, it has to be defined. If there is no (absolute or statistically significant) consensus as to what objectivity is in a certain context, which is another way of saying objectivity itself is subjective, then there is no such thing as objectivity. There are just different points of view (maybe a limited number or even 2), each of which may claim to be objective or not.

What’s the point again? Oh yeah. Oregon Pinot ain’t Burgundy.

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons

My argument would be that what is perceived changes with time, from the perspective of individuals and of human society in aggregate. There's a question, for example, of whether humans perceived the color blue before they learned to make blue dye - based on evidence such as, e.g., the omission of the word in the Homeric epics. I'd venture further to say that the capacity to perceive things 'out there' is cumulative, especially as the things perceived become more abstract.

Sorry, Ian, but that notion that the Greeks (and other ancients) didn't see or have words for blue is most likely mistaken. Quora has a good discussion about that idea. Some amount of confusion has arisen over the translation of Homer's term oinops (οἴνοπα) which some translate as "wine-dark" in reference to the sea but which alternatively can be translated as "wine-faced" and may not refer to color at all.

Mark Lipton

You love busting my chops, Mark; no need to feign remorse. The evidence I've heard discussed is not that they didn't perceive blue, in a physiological sense, but not as a distinct, named concept - which, I think, is like the discussion you linked in. The question of whether an, observed unnamed thing, not distinguished from the background, exists in the mind of the observer is one I'll leave alone for the moment.

I own that my wording was not optimally precise and invited your construction of my meaning.

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Ian,
If you believe that what's out there changes over time (in the sense that there once there wasn't blue and now there is) then you don't believe in objectivity. That's fine with me, but then you can hardly that you're or anyone's sense of complexity in burgundy is other than just that, a sense, and no better than anyone else's. If you believe that things are out there but our raw ability to perceive them changes, in the sense that the Greeks seeing the same part of the light spectrum didn't see what we do--didn't see what we call blue--then your position amounts to the same thing with regard to what we say about the world and about complexity in burgundy. You can have reality or you can leave it be, but if you want it, you can't have it only on your terms.

Jayson, this is, alas, not a debate about actual science, in which I would quickly fall by the wayside, but about the philosophy of science, which bears the same relationship to science as military intelligence bears to intelligence.

I don't believe the first thing you said, and I don't believe the second thing you said. Apologies.

I do believe a group of reasonably-experienced tasters sitting around a table with six wines could agree on an order of complexity among them. Given sufficient time and motivation, I believe such a group could work out a system of mutually-acceptable vocabulary to define the complexity they discern to a certain level of detail. Whether that system would gain currency with a broad group of tasters, however, would have to be tested.

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):

originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
With respect to wine, discussion of complexity is relatively infrequent and without rigor. Among the small set of all people who are explicitly interested in the complexity of wine, therefore, my expectation - as above - would be general agreement... as to relative ranking by complexity among a limited set of wines in a common setting.

Even that might be optimistic in this crowd.

Well, this crowd. Touché. [insert smily emoticon here]

posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I have no interest in that argument except to resist lowering the bar so any time enough people get togther and yell loud enough, they can tell themselves they've crossed it.

Based on our current politics, we are approaching that point.

Might makes right, qué no? I was thinking about this, too.

With respect to Jayson's comments, I'd love to read a colloquy between him and Mark on quantum theory. I also wish I knew more about Oregon Pinots.

 

[Jayson Cohen]

What do you want to know about quantum theory?

I imagine this is the farthest ranging Bordeaux thread in the history of wine boreds.

I have a serious question about objectivity. Let’s assume Jonathan opens some Southern Rhône Grenache-y hoo-hah for me next time he’s in NY that doesn’t have Rayas somewhere on the label, as he has told me is likely to happen. Is there a state of the universe in which alleged objectivity plays any role in my appreciation or lack thereof of said wine? If so, ‘xplain.