yvonne johnson

tommy, What? Who killed him? The smokers? There's a longish article in today's NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/14/nyregion/14STAB.html

Kimchi protects against SARS, so it's claimed http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?p...p=1048313363705

Liziee, I think there was an extra dot in the link you gave. Is this it? http://www.gayot.com/tastes/newsletter0403.html What should we look for?

What you said a few posts back on this thread was that "all science ever does is explain why they feel that way about it" (the meaning of which I don't understand), and you suggest science isn't very useful. A few months ago (in the part I quoted) you said that people's ability to identify the elements in dishes lacks the sophistication of a scientific analysis. Therefore, science is useful. And I eat fine. In the main, at the same NY places that you frequent.

Strange how Steve P is dismissing science when just a few months ago he predicted science would bring accurate langauge to the dining experience: http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?act=ST...0analysis&st=30 In the above Steve P seems to be saying that science would provide empirical evidence explaining why a dish tasted delicious.

Not my sole point, Yvonne. I'm not a better/worse fetishist My main interest is in experiencing the flavour, hopefully enjoying it, and if I'm in the mood trying to impart my experience to others. I think this thread is moving away from the opening premises and claims (this has never happened before!). Macrosan, I don't think anyone would disagree with you--we want to experience, enjoy and impart. What I was describing above was the role of the "gourmet" in the experiment. I'm saying the sole point to the experiment would be to rate the "taste" of dishes (some plainly, others elaborately presented). At issue is the argument that diners can somehow extricate taste from context. Research cited on this thread does not support this idea, and the proponents of the argument that this is indeed possible have not put forth any evidence that they can rate dishes holding in abeyance presentation. The proponents simply stick to the belief that this possible. G. and I were talking yesterday about an experiment Blumenthal did, I believe. It goes something like this: ice cream will taste different depending on whether the diner strokes sand-paper or velvet while eating. The senses are all intertwined. To be able to leave out tactile (outside of mouth) and visual cues while eating seems near impossible.

No. For some reason you keep confusing restaurant reviewing with tasting. Tasting is a specific thing that happens to be subsumed within restaurant reviewing. Steve, I'm not confusing the two. I was repsonding to macrosan's worry that if posters let presentation affect taste then posts on eGullet would have little merit.

I think the mistake you're making is to suggest that a "gourmet" would simply give a single score for the dish. He would actually, probably without any prompting even on the nature or objectives of the experiment, deliver a score for taste and a separate score for presentation. Maybe, but the sole point is to compare scores on "taste". If the only thing that is different in the 2 conditions is the presentation, then we can conclude that that made the difference in the scores, if there's found to be one. For some reason many find the possibility of the scores being higher in the "elaborate presentation" group a threat to balanced restaurant reviews. I don't see it that way as the presentation doesn't constitute the whole, only a part.

Tate Modern or Guggenheim Bilbao?

The restaurant at the Tate Modern, London, is very attractive and for lunch has good salads, sandwiches and a "real menu" which we didn't go for because of big dinner later the same day. Of course, LML wrote a great post on the Guggenheim Bilbao Restaurant a while back http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?act=ST...=2988&hl=bilbao

Dinner last night with two chums. To begin we shared a sopressata pizza which was delicious. The base has the consistency of Indian bread--paratha-like, crispy around the edge and in places underneath, slightly greasy and a little chewy. We also had a plate of olives and the beets-Gorgonzola salad, both very good. Next I had the calf's liver, which may not have been the best I've ever tasted, but it was sliced paper thin, tender (though maybe just a touch overcooked) and the gravy was quite rich. Very good reports from those who had the roast chicken and stuffed quail. Perfectly nice Sangiovese. Picture of the main dining room http://newyork.citysearch.com/profile/7104846/ which is very noisy around 9PM on a Saturday. The area around the bar as you walk in seemed quieter and cozier. Gonzo 140 W 13th St (b/w 6th and 7th Aves) New York, NY 10011-7802 Phone: (212) 645-4606

My favorite dish was the cod with chorizo. Colorful with soft, flakey (fish) and chewy (sausage)textures. Some of the beans were pureed and this made for a very comforting dish. I also liked the salad of sea bass that preceded it-- a bit of a surprise temperature-wise as it looked as though it would be a hot dish, but it worked at room temperature. We discussed the progression of the meal and some of us thought that the quail snooker/baseball might've fitted in better after one or two fish courses. (It looks as though the restaurant now presents this dish taking into account Lizzee & co’s suggestion on the placement of the gelee as it was right next to the quail ball.) Also, at last 2 of us thought that we'd have liked the meal to culminate in 2 meat courses rather than one. Desserts were poor in my opinion. But I'm not a big dessert fan in any case and that didn't much matter. In the main, they were on the same bandwidth as those found at Jean-Georges. The bread, especially the French rolls (from a Queens bakery--name escapes me), was fantastic. The service (on all levels from the M'd, Eric, to sommelier to waiters) was top rate; attentive, friendly, informative. Very nice of them to comp our pre-dinner drinks and champagne at table. Will definitely go back.

Steve, that's what I call a hypothesis. I'm asking you to show it's true using scientific method. Not to analyze the physical components. Rather, subjects in controlled conditions reporting on their taste of the dishes.

The big word here is IF. And, Steve, the question isn't whether you'd be able to recognize something blindfolded (though people have difficulty doing this sometimes because of the lack of visual cues). The question is whether you'd rate the same dish higher when given visual presentation. Up to now, neither Steve P nor Steve S has given evidence that they would give the same ratings to dishes in blindfolded and unblindfolded conditions. Restated, neither can show that they can separate the effect of presentation on their taste of food. (And of course to create the really good experiment, the subject would have to be unaware of the blindfolded condition. So, something like being given, unknown to them, the same dish in restaurants with different presentation/ambiances--say a scruffy cafe and a high end place-- might do.)

A mere distraction. Pass the nose plugs.