TN: 2017 Falkenstein Krettnacher Euchariusberg Riesling Kabinett (AP 12)

[Jonathan Loesberg]

I would guess that Oswaldo is an epistemological relativist, since he usually argues that we can't know what's out there, from which it follows that he can't know whether what's out there is a stable reality or not. But he might be an ontological relativist, arguing along with Heraclitus and Nietzsche that things really are non-identical with themselves, in which case it is futile to observe in order to understand principles producing regularities in the physical world because the true principle is that such regularities don't exist. In that case, he might join Heraclitus and Nietzsche in disagreeing with you. Even if he is an epistemological relativist, the Oswaldo who doesn't exist might still be an ontological one and he could disagree with you.

 

[Jayson Cohen]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I would guess that Oswaldo is an epistemological relativist, since he usually argues that we can't know what's out there, from which it follows that he can't know whether what's out there is a stable reality or not. But he might be an ontological relativist, arguing along with Heraclitus and Nietzsche that things really are non-identical with themselves, in which case it is futile to observe in order to understand principles producing regularities in the physical world because the true principle is that such regularities don't exist. In that case, he might join Heraclitus and Nietzsche in disagreeing with you. Even if he is an epistemological relativist, the Oswaldo who doesn't exist might still be an ontological one and he could disagree with you.

I’m going to stick to wine and (modern) physics and the possible if unprovable conjecture that we all exist. Descartes and Max Born - good enough for me.

 

[Karen Goetz]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
What I believe is that we have developed instruments that can measure what we call objective truth, e.g. that the earth revolves around the sun, but that we as humans must necessarily apprehend all objective truths subjectively. An artful illustration of this is the movie Rashomon, in which three people witnessing the same incident perceive it each in a different way. Even the simple idea that one planet revolves around another is apprehended slightly differently by each human being.

All this without even getting into the greater and perhaps irrelevant question of whether we do in fact exist, or are just figments of some kind that have little choice but to believe that we do. In which case even objective truth becomes part of the illusion.

But perhaps we all agree that wine perception is entirely subjective, and any consensus that emerges will only hold for some of the people for some of the time.

So: "...even the simple idea that ONE PLANET REVOLVES AROUND ANOTHER is apprehended slightly differently by each human being."
Hmmmmm.... because I apprehend planets that revolve around the sun, not each other. Perhaps I am a simpleton.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

originally posted by Karen Goetz:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
What I believe is that we have developed instruments that can measure what we call objective truth, e.g. that the earth revolves around the sun, but that we as humans must necessarily apprehend all objective truths subjectively. An artful illustration of this is the movie Rashomon, in which three people witnessing the same incident perceive it each in a different way. Even the simple idea that one planet revolves around another is apprehended slightly differently by each human being.

All this without even getting into the greater and perhaps irrelevant question of whether we do in fact exist, or are just figments of some kind that have little choice but to believe that we do. In which case even objective truth becomes part of the illusion.

But perhaps we all agree that wine perception is entirely subjective, and any consensus that emerges will only hold for some of the people for some of the time.

So: "...even the simple idea that ONE PLANET REVOLVES AROUND ANOTHER is apprehended slightly differently by each human being."
Hmmmmm.... because I apprehend planets that revolve around the sun, not each other. Perhaps I am a simpleton.

Touché!

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I would guess that Oswaldo is an epistemological relativist, since he usually argues that we can't know what's out there, from which it follows that he can't know whether what's out there is a stable reality or not. But he might be an ontological relativist, arguing along with Heraclitus and Nietzsche that things really are non-identical with themselves, in which case it is futile to observe in order to understand principles producing regularities in the physical world because the true principle is that such regularities don't exist. In that case, he might join Heraclitus and Nietzsche in disagreeing with you. Even if he is an epistemological relativist, the Oswaldo who doesn't exist might still be an ontological one and he could disagree with you.

This all sounds so sexy that I may be compelled to agree with all the possibilities simultaneously.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I would guess that Oswaldo is an epistemological relativist, since he usually argues that we can't know what's out there, from which it follows that he can't know whether what's out there is a stable reality or not. But he might be an ontological relativist, arguing along with Heraclitus and Nietzsche that things really are non-identical with themselves, in which case it is futile to observe in order to understand principles producing regularities in the physical world because the true principle is that such regularities don't exist. In that case, he might join Heraclitus and Nietzsche in disagreeing with you. Even if he is an epistemological relativist, the Oswaldo who doesn't exist might still be an ontological one and he could disagree with you.

This all sounds so sexy that I may be compelled to agree with all the possibilities simultaneously.

As long as holding mutually contradicting beliefs doesn't bother you (a thoroughgoing epistemological relativist can hardly claim to know that reality is actually non-identical, though he couldn't know that it wasn't), go right ahead. I do think trying to work either belief out has its fascinations. And, though I don't hold either of them, they can both lead to salutary forms of uncertainty that makes me want to formulate more confined and tenable versions.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

What did some wag say about the merits of holding mutually-contradictory beliefs?

 

[Marc Hanes]

Hey, I liked the 2017 Falkenstein Riesling Krettnacher Euchariusberg Spätlese AP #14...

 

[VLM]

There have been a lot of words, from word people. I admire words and word people. However, if you don't think that the number at the end adds information, I think that you are wrong. Also, if you don't think that if I took 30 of us and we scored 50 wines and that I couldn't predict whether you liked a novel wine you're probably wrong. I'd link to my ncbi, but we're above that, right?

That being said, I only put scores in because there is a spot for it and it gives me a grounded estimate that words do not convey because words are squishy and allow an inexact take. The number commits me to what I think about that wine when I have it, relative to other wines that I can remember and it serves a valuable purpose that words really don't. I could put up a couple of different sets of words that describe wines that I feel differently about and we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

I am also of the philosophical disposition that number represent real things, in the set of ℝ.

Edited to add that words are beautiful things and hopefully mine aren't too dreary.

 

[Jayson Cohen]

originally posted by VLM:
There have been a lot of words, from word people. I admire words and word people. However, if you don't think that the number at the end adds information, I think that you are wrong. Also, if you don't think that if I took 30 of us and we scored 50 wines and that I couldn't predict whether you liked a novel wine you're probably wrong. I'd link to my ncbi, but we're above that, right?

That being said, I only put scores in because there is a spot for it and it gives me a grounded estimate that words do not convey because words are squishy and allow an inexact take. The number commits me to what I think about that wine when I have it, relative to other wines that I can remember and it serves a valuable purpose that words really don't. I could put up a couple of different sets of words that describe wines that I feel differently about and we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

I am also of the philosophical disposition that number represent real things, in the set of ℝ.

Edited to add that words are beautiful things and hopefully mine aren't too dreary.

Nice words: I give them [pick a number randomly in ℝ] points.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

I don't think anyone doubts that numbers add information. If a man scores a woman, that gives information about how attractive he finds a woman. If the sheer fact of being information were acceptable justification, that would justify the scoring of women.

The issue, for me, is the insidious and largely invisible damage that simple numerical judgments applied to complex subjects generates in minds already programmed to act instrumentally. It's the executive summary mentality: why read a book when you can read the synopsis? Points encourage people to make simplistic judgments about complex things, and we just don't need any more of that.

 

[Peter Creasey]

Nathan, well said!

. . . . Pete

 

[Keith Levenberg]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
What did some wag say about the merits of holding mutually-contradictory beliefs?

That it's untenable because you can logically and validly deduce literally any conclusion from them?

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by VLM:
There have been a lot of words, from word people. I admire words and word people. However, if you don't think that the number at the end adds information, I think that you are wrong. Also, if you don't think that if I took 30 of us and we scored 50 wines and that I couldn't predict whether you liked a novel wine you're probably wrong. I'd link to my ncbi, but we're above that, right?

That being said, I only put scores in because there is a spot for it and it gives me a grounded estimate that words do not convey because words are squishy and allow an inexact take. The number commits me to what I think about that wine when I have it, relative to other wines that I can remember and it serves a valuable purpose that words really don't. I could put up a couple of different sets of words that describe wines that I feel differently about and we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

I am also of the philosophical disposition that number represent real things, in the set of ℝ.

Edited to add that words are beautiful things and hopefully mine aren't too dreary.

I have no doubt that the numbers mean something precise to you. And with sufficient words, and in particular probably some hard cross-examination from both sides, we could determine what they mean when you affix them to a wine evaluation. Regardless of what you think they mean, however, what numbers convey, at least to me, is a somewhat slack semiological communication about evaluation. That's OK with me if it's OK with you.

I would not be surprised if, with sufficient information, you could guess with considerable accuracy whether I like a wine. Good wine salespeople do that all the time, without having me score wines for them.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
What did some wag say about the merits of holding mutually-contradictory beliefs?

That it's untenable because you can logically and validly deduce literally any conclusion from them?

Not what I had in mind, of course, but I agree that one could deduce anything. But does that make it untenable or merely contradictory? Contradiction, especially in humanoids, seems perfectly tenable.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

originally posted by Peter Creasey:

Nathan, well said!

. . . . Pete

Case closed.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
What did some wag say about the merits of holding mutually-contradictory beliefs?

That it's untenable because you can logically and validly deduce literally any conclusion from them?

Not what I had in mind, of course, but I agree that one could deduce anything. But does that make it untenable or merely contradictory? Contradiction, especially in humanoids, seems perfectly tenable.

It's all about flexibility, really.