3 Most Important Elements of a Plate...

[g.johnson]

He has studied the brain activity of wine tasters and found that those sections handling information relating to colour and knowledge operate alongside those which deal with flavour and smell. What we perceive is a mixture of thought, vision and taste.

Prof. any truth in this? Could put Plontnicki on the ropes.

I don't know. The original paper, here, is in Frenglish and pretty impenetrable.

However, I strongly suspect that the ability to identify flavour cues in wine is a higher cognitive function, related to the ability to memorize those cues in a systematic manner. That is not to say that there aren't supertasters and supersmellers with more taste/olfactory receptors. But rather that those won't do you any good if you can't categorize what you're tasting/smelling. And if it's a higher function then it'll be found somewhere in the frontal cortex near all those other higher functions relating to visual recognition, language, etc.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Steve - Yes Steve, the problem is when experts with 'better opinions' take their fancy tomato tasting learning and then decide what the correct level of sugar in a rabbit is. This is obviously, crazy talk.

But you can't dispute that the standard in food is based on what people like to eat. All the empirical evidence does is show why they like to eat it. The standard is always tied to humans and how they function.

[balex]

Steve - Yes Steve, the problem is when experts with 'better opinions' take their fancy tomato tasting learning and then decide what the correct level of sugar in a rabbit is. This is obviously, crazy talk.

But you can't dispute that the standard in food is based on what people like to eat. All the empirical evidence does is show why they like to eat it. The standard is always tied to humans and how they function.

I think one of the problems in this discussion (and I am not a participant) is that S.P. is not using the word empirical in the way that it is generally used. What people like to eat is a bit of empirical evidence. Empirical does not mean scientific -- it just means to do with experience rather than theory.

Edited April 10, 2003 by balex (log)

[Wilfrid]

Thanks, balex. (It's probably used differently in wine circles .)

[g.johnson]

Thanks, balex.  (It's probably used differently in wine circles  .)

In wine circles it means theoretical.

[Wilfrid]

Entirely consistent with the possibility that simplicity can be complex.

[Adam Balic]

Steve - Yes Steve, the problem is when experts with 'better opinions' take their fancy tomato tasting learning and then decide what the correct level of sugar in a rabbit is. This is obviously, crazy talk.

But you can't dispute that the standard in food is based on what people like to eat. All the empirical evidence does is show why they like to eat it. The standard is always tied to humans and how they function.

I think one of the problems in this discussion (and I am not a participant) is that S.P. is not using the word empirical in the way that it is generally used. What people like to eat is a bit of empirical evidence. Empirical does not mean scientific -- it just means to do with experience rather than theory.

Hey, no fair, you stole my punch line! Slowly, but surely I lured the beast into the open, away from his usually protective covering of 'better opinion' and 'expertise', I confuse him with silliness, about to deliver the coup de grace (I am not without pity, I allow him to die as he lived - Frenchly), then you pop in.

I think one of the problems in this discussion (and I am not a participant) is that S.P. is not using the word empirical in the way that it is generally used.

A common problem.

[Adam Balic]

Steve - Yes Steve, the problem is when experts with 'better opinions' take their fancy tomato tasting learning and then decide what the correct level of sugar in a rabbit is. This is obviously, crazy talk.

But you can't dispute that the standard in food is based on what people like to eat.

Hey, I don't dispute this, that's your job, if the what people like to eat of some people doesn't agree with your what people like to eat.

[balex]

Steve - Yes Steve, the problem is when experts with 'better opinions' take their fancy tomato tasting learning and then decide what the correct level of sugar in a rabbit is. This is obviously, crazy talk.

But you can't dispute that the standard in food is based on what people like to eat.

Hey, I don't dispute this, that's your job, if the what people like to eat of some people doesn't agree with your what people like to eat.

Don't be stupid -- it is only the opinions of qualified experts that matter. And the definition of a qualified expert is someone that agrees with Steve. Sorry to steal your punch line. You shouldn't go to bed so early

[Steve Plotnicki]

What other opinions matter? Or I'll even broaden it for you. Whose receommendations matter?

Edited April 10, 2003 by Steve Plotnicki (log)

[oraklet]

let's see: we've got a trade, fine cooking. fine craftsmen, some of them perhaps even artists, are employed in the trade. the products, fine food and most times fine service and surroundings, are sold to discriminating connaisseurs, gourmets.

that's what we're talking about, right? so what's the fuss about? isn't it obvious to everybody that, inside this context, craftsman and connaisseur are to a large degree in possesion of the same ability to perform an objective analysis of the subject matter? why drag in silly or irrelevant examples of paintings seen in inferior lighting or extreme scientific experiments?

is it the word "objective"? does that bother you? okay, it's not objective in the sense that it's infallible. it's objective in the sense that the object in question is isolated and analyzed to a degree that is professional, that is, an analysis which can be used to judge the quality of any products of the trade. this is actually the most important part of any craftsman's training. but perhaps this is very difficult to understand if you're not yourself a craftsman.

anyway, it's the naked truth. take the words of a craftsman for that.

[Steve Plotnicki]

but perhaps this is very difficult to understand if you're not yourself a craftsman

.

And obviously even more difficult to understand if you are a scientist.

Actually I had dinner last week with five people, all of them holding PHD's in physics. All serious wine collectors. They didn't seem to have this same trouble with these concepts. So I guess there is hope for Adam and the rest of the crew.

Edited April 10, 2003 by Steve Plotnicki (log)

[Adam Balic]

What's a "PHD"? Anyhow, physics is stamp-collecting mostly, dinner with five of the buggers, I pity you!

that's what we're talking about, right? so what's the fuss about? isn't it obvious to everybody that, inside this context, craftsman and connaisseur are to a large degree in possesion of the same ability to perform an objective analysis of the subject matter? why drag in silly or irrelevant examples of paintings seen in inferior lighting or extreme scientific experiments?

Extreme scientific experiments? Where, the last example I saw presented by a scientist (well, the Prof. anyway) was a straight forward comparison of the abitlity of 'experts' to taste wine. Extremely, on-line with the central theme of the most recent discussion.

What was the feed-back from the 'the taste of food never changes, unless your palate is compromised' camp? Nothing.

Both Plotnicki and Fatguy play around with the idea of using trivial examples to back up their claims of "food tastes like food" (eg. Yellow chicks on the plate), but when some harder evidence is presented that disagrees with their theories, then they are very quite indeed.

Now I don't actually disagree with the two of them, some of the things they have suggested I even agree with. But, and maybe this my scientific training, just because a panel of experts say that something is so, I require some type of evidence before I believe them. For all the times that Fatguy says that if you block out the externals, 'food tastes like food', I would like to seem some evidence of this, especially when the comment comes from a food writer, who is trying to be as 'objective' as possible.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Problem is, and this is the bit where the conversation goes circular, dining isn't something precise. So when the scientists try to bring specificty to it the conversation goes awry.

Actually the dinner was great fun and the food and wines were phenomenol. But I learned all about space shots and how they save fuel when they launch satelites.

[balex]

Problem is, and this is the bit where the conversation goes circular, dining isn't something precise. So when the scientists try to bring specificty to it the conversation goes awry.

I am a scientist who studies language which is notoriously imprecise. I think you can discuss these things rationally and objectively -- you just have to pretty careful. And of course it is fallible. Objectivity isn't the same as certainty.

But there isn't much point in carrying on -- you don't accept philosophical arguments, you don't accept empirical arguments. I suppose I could try vulgar abuse You live in NY right?

[Adam Balic]

Problem is, and this is the bit where the conversation goes circular, dining isn't something precise. So when the scientists try to bring specificty to it the conversation goes awry.

OK, dining isn't precise (although elements of it are), so scientist shouldn't try to be. Fine, but if that is the case then you and Fatguy don't really have a case for 'food always tastes like food' either. Dining is imprecise, different thing effect different diners. Saying that yellow chicks on plates doesn't effect the taste of food or that people whos taste is effected by yellow chicks are 'poor tasters', whatever, is by you own comments wrong. Unless, that is, there is a certain 'exactness' in dining that can be 'precisely' defined, that is, and in this case back come the Scientists and all there specificty. You can't have it both ways.

Slingshots huh? Parabolic orbits right? Physicists .

[Steve Plotnicki]

OK, dining isn't precise (although elements of it are), so scientist shouldn't try to be.

I always view this debate as a control issue. The scientists are trying to rest conclusory statments away from the connoiseurs by switching the context of the debate to empirical evidence. But as Oraklet so deftly put it, the pursuit of food and wine is a pursuit among, and by, and for the benefit of, other connoiseurs. So I am afraid, that leaves science in this odd secondary position of explaining why the connoiseurs like what they like. Always a bridesmaid .

Yes, I got a short dissertation on slingshots. I am trying to work out similar methodology to save fuel in my car.

[oraklet]

"Extreme scientific experiments? Where, the last example I saw presented by a scientist (well, the Prof. anyway) was a straight forward comparison of the abitlity of 'experts' to taste wine." (balic)

the wine-experts-being-fooled has the ring of...er...incredibility, don't you feel? i mean, who were those "experts"? how was it controlled? personally i know a few who would almost certainly not be fooled under the described circumstances. my "extreme scientific experiments" was a hint at the research indiagirl (and i believe, others) brought up. interesting but, excuse me, irrelevant.

damn, the smelling and tasting ability of most top chefs and their connaisseur counterparts aren't exactly impaired, no? this is about having spent years at gaining knowledge of what are the elements of a trade. just like any graphic artists knows more about perspective than most laymen do, so is any line cook superior to most laymen in knowledge of, say, sauteeing. and when it comes to the top chefs and their audience of globetrotting gourmets - well, you may draw your own conclusions.

or do you subscribe to the "emperor's new clothes" theori?

[Elissa]

Please allow me to interject: Chemists are the best cooks.

Edited April 10, 2003 by lissome (log)

[Adam Balic]

Connoiseurs, Connisnooze. Food is for all sorts of folk. You go back to your Pertus and you foie gras and enjoy, but don't be surprised when we Scientists (+Wilfrid) take pot-shots at you when you raise you head above the wall.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Science subordinate to art? What a concept.

I know we've won the battle when Adam is reduced to class warfare potshots.

[Adam Balic]

"Extreme scientific experiments? Where, the last example I saw presented by a scientist (well, the Prof. anyway) was a straight forward comparison of the abitlity of 'experts' to taste wine." (balic)

the wine-experts-being-fooled has the ring of...er...incredibility, don't you feel? i mean, who were those "experts"? how was it controlled? personally i know a few who would almost certainly not be fooled under the described circumstances. my "extreme scientific experiments" was a hint at the research indiagirl (and i believe, others) brought up. interesting but, excuse me, irrelevant.

damn, the smelling and tasting ability of most top chefs and their connaisseur counterparts aren't exactly impaired, no? this is about having spent years at gaining knowledge of what are the elements of a trade. just like any graphic artists knows more about perspective than most laymen do, so is any line cook superior to most laymen in knowledge of, say, sauteeing. and when it comes to the top chefs and their audience of globetrotting gourmets - well, you may draw your own conclusions.

or do you subscribe to the "emperor's new clothes" theori?

Why, Oraklet, this new critial thinking of yours is almost, dare I say it, "Scientific". Although you fail at this when you say that you know several people that "almost certainly not be fooled under the described circumstances", very un-scientific. Sounds almost like a comment fro the Vatican.

Chefs and Plotnicki may have better taste then most laymen, but that is not what the discussion is about. Do externals influence the 'taste' of food? Proberly. Even some scientific evidence for it. What's the big deal then?

[Adam Balic]

Science subordinate to art? What a concept.

I know we've won the battle when Adam is reduced to class warfare potshots.

What? What class warfare? This is "Scientists" (or at least people that require some type of evidence to back a claim) and you lot that just require hand waving and opinions.

If it was about class warfare I would have repeated what the Prof. once said:

"Plotnicki and I have one thing in common. We are both class tratiors".

[oraklet]

Please allow me to interject: Chemists are the best cooks.

not my grandfather, though

oh, and by the way: this started out as a discussion of the importance of presentation to taste. a discussion, remember, on egullet, not in your local newspaper. we're not common folks (though some of us are quite poor). we are foodies of different degrees. we taste. we analyze. we judge. we say: "well, maybe a little less lime zest and a little more lime juice".

do you really, really think that kind of judgement is influenced by presentation?

edit: adam, i do know quite a few who certainly would be fooled...

Edited April 10, 2003 by oraklet (log)

[Adam Balic]

"do you really, really think that kind of judgement is influenced by presentation?"

Yes.

You 'taste' food with you brain, not you tongue. Things that influence your thinking will alter what you see, hear, smell and taste in the external world. Don't make we bring in websites to test you here, because by God I will if pushed.