g.johnson

Short for gin and Italian, I believe.

On the contrary, I think I'm getting the estimation exactly right.

There are at least two Guinness breweries: St James Gate, Dublin and Park Royal, London. I don't know if there are different recipes for different locations but Park Royal Guinness is definitely inferior. The bottled stuff is an acquired taste. It's also a live beer with a yeast sediment.

Going? No. But let's be clear that I'm equating taste with perception of flavour as I think we must. To flesh out your Gedankenexperiment, take a 100 gourmets, who are unaware of the nature of the study. Give half of them the elaborate presentation, half the simple. (They should probably not see the alternative presentation.) Have them score the dish on a scale of 1 to 10. A week later repeat the experiment with each gourmet receiving the other presentation. If you didn’t find a statistically significant difference in the taste ratings, I would be stunned. I would guess that the more elaborate presentation would average between 10% to 20% higher. Hypothetically, yes, practically, no.

The Innocence Project has overturned 127 convictions of which 37 were murders.

To Atelier on Friday night with the clique. (Contrary to popular opinion the clique is not exclusive. We encourage new applicants. However, in order to maintain standards, there is an entrance examination. On quantum electrodynamics. In Latin.) We threw ourselves on the mercy of the Chef and ate: Pre-amuse: Peaky toe crab on a little toast. It was crab. It was on toast. Amuse: Mackerel with apple jelly. I don't like mackerel. This was very, very good. 1. Quail, foie, truffle jelly, more quail. As others have described. Not, for me, quite the high point of the evening but excellent. The snooker ball of cabbage wrapped quail/foil was a little too cold. 2. Warm salad of sea bass (I think), caviar, cockles and asparagus. Again excellent. 3. Crawfish pie with morels and porcini. This came to the table in a small covered pot with a crust to seal the lid. After de-lidding (we got to keep the fine crust), a rich broth was poured into the pot. For me the best dish of the evening. Crawfish, mushrooms, pie. What's not to like? 4. Some sort of white fish with a blood orange sauce. In any other place this might have seemed good. But it was very bland compared with what had come before and what followed. 5. Cod, chorizo and beans. I think I'm overusing 'excellent'. Excellent. 6. Lobster in lobster broth. Very nice flavour but the body meat was a tad overcooked. 7. Sqaub, foie, bric. Should have been great because it's a pie but I was a little disappointed. I thought it needed a bit more flavour. A rich veal reduction or something. Pre-pudding: Three little pots of fruit type substance. Rhubarb, apricot and something. Not great. Puddings: Oh, a whole lot of them. None very remarkable. Very friendly and competent service. A very satisfying meal. That this place only received two stars is bizarre. It may not be a four star place because there are some lapses (overcooked lobster, overchilled foie/quail). It may also be too conservative to garner four, but personally that's what I liked about the place. $240 a head. Another cliquister will chip in on the wines, I think.

Fruitarians in the UK took it a little further -- they would only eat windfalls. To save the fruit from suffering, of course. Edit: further/farther. Does anyone understand that one.

I'll go back to curing cancer. It's simpler. Edited for pith.

There is good to overwhelming scientific evidence that 1) Food does change because enzymes in saliva break down the starch. 2) Salivation does not ‘obscure the taste of the food’, it helps you taste the food.

Everyone please note. If you see someone in Ducasse wearing a blindfold it's a poor food critic practicing his art. The dedicated critic will always undergo sensory deprivation for the sake of an objective review uninfluenced by the fripperies of appearance. Though keep in mind that his review will be irrelevant to you since you will be influenced by the fripperies of appearance and will taste the food differently.

As I understand it, FG has been arguing that the taster can separate appearance and flavour. To demonstrate this he has, at a minimum, to show that there is no way at all in which the taster could alter the chemical composition of the food while he’s in a position to taste it. There is. So he’s wrong. QED.

Sorry you didn't understand the science. I tried to make it as easy as possible.

Sorry you got this bit wrong. You are describing a flaw of the taster, not the quality of the thing he is tasting. Unless your taster can control his parasympathetic nervous system (he can't) then he can't control whether he salivates or not.

Well nobody disagrees with this (I don't think?). I do because it turns out to be wrong. Saliva contains the enzyme alpha-amylase which breaks down starches to maltoses. This process begins in the mouth and will be more rapid in someone who is salivating freely. Since salivation is stimulated by sight, appearance can affect the molecular composition of the food, if not on the plate, then as soon as it touches the tongue. See, Pedersen et al. Saliva and gastrointestinal functions of taste, mastication, swallowing and digestion, Oral Diseases 8, 117 (2002). This process is, of course, entirely independent of the expertise of the taster. OK. That’s that settled.

By using the phrase "perception of flavour" are you agreeing that perception of flavour and actual flavour are two distinct concepts? Or do you think flavour is meaningless without perception as an integral part of the definition? The latter. Just trying to be unambiguous since you forensic types get so picky.

I suspect that they were students. They almost always are. I'm sure that those with experienced/trained palates could do better. But I think we'd be very rash to conclude that appearance has no affect on our perception of flavour, no matter how experienced we are. I think intensity does matter. For example we like beef to be beefy: lack of flavour is the perenial complaint over filet mignon. But the other studies show that colour also affect what we taste: yellow drinks taste citrusy; red ones sweet.

I found this site with A Research Proposal: Are Taster Types Differently Influenced Perceptually by Jellybean Color? by one Kathleen M. Brockie. A few quotes from the introduction: Edit: Added emphasis to the most striking result.

Elizabeth David has a recipe for pork to taste like wild boar that involves marinading it for 3 days in wine and, among other ingredients, juniper berries. A little goes a long way, in my view. I believe the traditional Royal Navy drink, pink gin (gin and angostura) is normally drunk at room temperature. Edit: Syntax.

The trouble-shooting page is pretty hilarious too. They seem to have missed the most obvious problem: "Why does it taste like shite?"

Fluffy mackerel pudding.

I don't really understand it as a definition at all. Is it listed under the archaic section? Who uses taste as a noun to mean "the act of tasting"? I'm having trouble coming up with a sentence where it would be used that way. It's flagged as 'obscure' which I hadn't noticed initially. 1592 SHAKES. Rom. & Jul. II. vi. 13 The sweetest honey Is loathsome in his owne deliciousnesse, And in the taste confoundes the appetite. Of course. I don't think anyone has been arguing that.

To talk of the taste of food in the absence of a taster seems to me to be literally nonsense. I'm not even sure that's the right part of speech; aren't you defining a verb? Not according to the OED. 'The act of tasting' must refer to a noun, no? This is the closest the OED comes to an 'objective definition': "That quality or property of a body or substance which is perceived when it is brought into contact with certain organs of the mouth, etc., esp. the tongue; savour, sapidity; the particular sensation excited by anything in this manner." Again perception is key.

I'm not denying the existance of salt in my soup. I'm denying that the soup can be described as 'salty'* in the absence of a taster. *Unless you wish to define 'salty' as 'containing salt'.

Again, semantics. Yes, if taste includes perception of taste, all sorts of things other than actual taste can affect it. 'Taste' is a perception. OED: To talk of the taste of food in the absence of a taster seems to me to be literally nonsense.

Oh rubbish. You're the one writing articles about how to get VIP treatment. If that's not improper how can Cabrales cast 'a shadow of doubt' over anyone's integrity when the give or recieve such treatment.