Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
So you don't think that it is the case, and would be true even if no human beings existed, that the earth revolves around the sun?
TN: 2017 Falkenstein Krettnacher Euchariusberg Riesling Kabinett (AP 12)
- Thread starter Jayson Cohen
- Start date
So you don't think that it is the case, and would be true even if no human beings existed, that the earth revolves around the sun?
Jayson Cohen
Jayson Cohen
What does that have to do with objective truth(s) about wine tasting that always involves a human? Don’t let the abstraction or larger category of possible measurements in the universe swallow the application of interest - people tasting wine.
And by the way it is well established in quantum measurement theory that the measurement device and system measured are necessarily coupled, that back action occurs, and that you can’t turn off the quantum vacuum that causes noise. To measure something is to disturb it. I.e., it is fundamental that there is no such thing as passive measurement/observation in the real world. It’s only ever an approximation. Sometimes/often/mostly a very very good and sufficient approximation. What I understand you to mean by objective truth without a margin of error/deviation is a myth or an approximation of reality.
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
My bold.
This obliquely raises what I see as an important point: What is the use of a TN? How exact do our measures have to be for it to fulfill its function?
It appears that many people feel that integer values are sufficient. Why?
Jayson Cohen
Jayson Cohen
I don’t know. I don’t know.
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
Great minds snore alike.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
First, we aren't arguing about wine tasting, which we both agree to be subjective. We are arguing about whether we can know the truth about "many things," which does not entail all things.
Second, I'm not able to argue how far the Heisenberg principle can be generalised with a physicist. But (I guess I will) I do think you are improperly generalising it into a metaphysical position that I do not really think you are prepared to hold in meaningful terms. I note for instance that you do not answer the question about the earth rotating around the sun, unless you mean to say that that is true up to a high level of approximation. But that is weasel language for most things. How does it meaningfully change the proposition? Are you not fully certain it's true or do you expect that there might be minute, atomic levels of variation of that situation from one observer to another? I don't think either distinction is a difference. I expect when the NY Times tells you that something Trump has said is false, you do not really think that it is only false within a margin of error or with a high level of approximation.
Jayson Cohen
Jayson Cohen
Of course the earth revolves around the sun whether a person observes it or not. In that sense of course there are objective truths. It’s also true that there is a probability, however small, that a baseball will diffract around a bat heading directly toward it. That’s an objective truth too. But what does any of that have to do with wine?
Also I’m not going anywhere near the NY Times versus Trump thing, or your specific question about it, which BTW any decent second-year law student would object to as lacking foundation.
Also I’m not going anywhere near the NY Times versus Trump thing, or your specific question about it, which BTW any decent second-year law student would object to as lacking foundation.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
It has nothing to do with wine and never did. It has to do with my objection to Oswaldo's assertion that we don't get objective truth and the most we can hope for is consensus. I agree with you and Oswaldo that with regard to wine evaluation there is no objective truth. I don't even think consensus, such as it is is particularly meaningful. There may be a consensus that steak should be eaten rare or medium rare (at least among food writers or those I read), but if I liked steak cooked well done or Porterhouse blue, that consensus wouldn't carry any particular weight with me, not should it.
Jayson Cohen
Jayson Cohen
Ok. Let’s just stick to wine. I think that there is perceived value for many people in consensus and establishing community-held beliefs and values that you seem to be neglecting. Maybe because subjectively that holds no value for you - your norm, “nor should it”, suggests that. But I can’t deny that that value may influence what a particular person likes.
Oswaldo Costa
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.
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.
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
I thought M. Descartes addressed just exactly this question (Fourth Meditation?).
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
Many have addressed the issue of whether we exist, or whether a supreme being exists, but I believe it to be unknowable because thought itself could be part of the illusion.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
If you merely think you're thinking, aren't you still thinking?
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
I read book reviews, movie reviews, restaurant reviews and even tasting notes on a couple of boards, just like the rest of you. If a whole bunch of certain reviewers like a movie, I'm likely to watch it at one point or another. Book reviews are easier since good ones offer summary, interpretation and analysis of a kind that gives me information in addition to the evaluation. And, of course, trying something I might not like is not a disaster for me. I've still tried something new. But, no, I don't take points seriously except as another form of language to communicate evaluation.
Peter Creasey
Peter Creasey
I can sort of understand the objection to points but not the passion that some feel against something that is so easily ignored.
. . . . . . Pete
. . . . . . Pete
Jayson Cohen
Jayson Cohen
It’s a festering cancer. (Ok - I admit that’s a little extreme.) It’s based on a firmly-held belief that what conveys meaning and value and enjoyment (or lack thereof) in any particular wine or set of wines or the same “wine” in different vintages cannot ever be reduced in any meaningful way (for those of us who are passionate) to a single number, much less use such a number to somehow determine and/or rank wine quality. And then the extreme position in my view that is taken as gospel for some is to believe that one’s own points are somehow an objective measure of that wine’s quality in any meaningful sense. A wine becomes a number, is better than a wine with a lower number, and that is the truth. And then some people talk about the numbers, not the wines themselves. Gag me — aesthetically, scientifically, statistically, you name it.
Which is not at all to say that one can’t like wine X better than wine Y or think that wine X is a better wine (for whatever reasons) than wine Y. Or to assign sonorous prongs.
We are passionate people.
Jayson Cohen
Jayson Cohen
So I think we are in agreement. Consensus at last.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
If it's only two of us, does that count as consensus?
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
It indicates a reductive mindset and so does damage to the validity of the associated written note. (When the point-score is used as shorthand then, for us here, all validity drains away.)
Yes to all of that. And to the extent that these points are supposed to stand in for all bottles of a particular vintage (e.g. the 1996 Wine X is 96 points!) it impedes understanding wine and its ever-moving-target-ness.
That said, while I don't use points, for personal reference I can understand people wanting to 'score' their particular experiences with a particular bottle. It's just when the points get generalized across all bottles/tasters that it loses meaning.