3 Most Important Elements of a Plate...

[Steve Plotnicki]

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.

But don't you see the inconsistancy in that statement?

Main Entry: con·nois·seur

Pronunciation: "kä-n&-'s&r also -'sur

Function: noun

Etymology: obsolete French (now connaisseur), from Old French connoisseor, from connoistre to know, from Latin cognoscere -- more at COGNITION

Date: 1714

1 : EXPERT; especially : one who understands the details, technique, or principles of an art and is competent to act as a critical judge

2 : one who enjoys with discrimination and appreciation of subtleties

- con·nois·seur·ship /-"ship/ noun

The art of food and wine appreciation revolves around people who have the cognitive ability to determine what is good and what is not. All science ever does is explain why they feel that way about it. People who are connoiseurs have to go no further then to prove why their judgement is a valid opinion. Infallability is not the standard. You should stop asking people who are connoiseurs to demonstrate anything other then a valid opinion.

I loved this post. It was some hellacious knife twisting.

[Bux]

Then what's that bulge in your pocket?

I've been away and return to find this thread, like may others, has long since seemed to cease to serve any purpose to reasonable men and women such as myself, but I'm surprised that not a soul has informed Wilfrid that the original subject just appears happy to see him.

[Adam Balic]

PLease Steve, no more examples of faulty logic.

"Vaccination" is derived from root word for "cow" or "cattle". Therefore all vaccinated people are cows? (Maybe in the Plotnickiverse).

People who are connoiseurs have to go no further then to prove why their judgement is a valid opinion.

Sure, this maybe true in part, but you have yet do to do this yet, in this instance. I think that what Wilfrid and others has been saying all along is that Fatguys and your opinions in this instance are not valid. The rest of the thread has mostly been you dodging about with the premise that as you have an "opinion", then it must also be "valid".

[oraklet]

"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.

just one thing: most tests are performed with "average" people, not trained craftsmen. trained to focus on the important issues and to ignore "noise".

not infallible, but pretty reliable in comparison to the average.

edit: i once saw two musicians rehearsing in the same room. two different pieces of music, though. each of them perfectly contained in his own world. the noble art of shotting out noise!

Edited April 10, 2003 by oraklet (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

Sure, this maybe true in part, but you have yet do to do this yet, in this instance

But you keep removing Fat Guy's statement out of the context of the dining experience to make that point. In reality, in the context of the dining experience, very little can change.

This problem exists because you guys can't imagine that people have the aptitude we are describing. That is Oraklet's point. For people who work in the arts and crafts, people with the type of aptitude we are describing are abundant because that's what makes their discipline tick in the first place. The only people who would ask for empirical evidence are those who can't get their arms around it in the same way. People who don't get it. Because if you got it, you certainly wouldn't be asking for empirical evidence. In fact you would be providing it because you are wired that way.

[Wilfrid]

It's Fat Guy's reasoning, to the extent he offered it, that made no sense. Since that's been demonstrated, and we haven't heard any alternative reasoning, we may as well...

Hey, Jon Acord on the thread. How are you doing? Bet you're glad you read this far!

[g.johnson]

But I learned all about space shots and how they save fuel when they launch satelites.

Then they weren't scientists. They were engineers. Glorified technicians.

[balex]

. The only people who would ask for empirical evidence are those who can't get their arms around it in the same way. People who don't get it. Because if you got it, you certainly wouldn't be asking for empirical evidence. In fact you would be providing it because you are wired that way.

Another excellent argument. I slightly preferred the "I spend more money on food and wine than you so I must be right" one, but this one has certain attractions as well for students of rhetoric.

[g.johnson]

So I am afraid, that leaves science in this odd secondary position of explaining why the connoiseurs like what they like.

Science is always in that position: explaining why things are the way they are. And, if the experiment I posted to above is to be believed, we have now explained the taste of connoisseurs: they like what they like because they believe they should like it.

[J Acord]

All I can say is...

Good God!

I started reading from page 1, and about an hour and a half later I am still here!

Not sure whether I should put my towpenneths worth in or just leave it.....

[Steve Plotnicki]

Another excellent argument. I slightly preferred the "I spend more money on food and wine than you so I must be right" one, but this one has certain attractions as well for students of rhetoric.

Well you see you've distorted the thrust of that argument to prove the assertion wrong. The right way of saying it is;

"I spend more money on food and wine than you so I have much more experience then you." Not to mention the time and energy I spend to keep up with changes etc. Unless you are saying that people who do it more don't have a better vantage point? Go ahead. I dare you.

As always, this conversation comes down to a quarrel between people who do it, and people who don't do it, or don't really get it because they don't really do it.

Edited April 10, 2003 by Steve Plotnicki (log)

[g.johnson]

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?

The work won an award from the Academie Amorim, a private organization that funds oenological research with the aim of promoting the enjoyment of wine. They evidently had no problem with it.

[g.johnson]

This problem exists because you guys can't imagine that people have the aptitude we are describing.

Not at all. I challenge you to find any statement, on any thread, by myself, Yvonne, Wilfrid, Balic or balex denying the existence of acute tasters. All we have denied is the ability of any taster to entirely shut out visual and other non-taste cues when tasting.

[Steve Plotnicki]

But isn't that just a question of how far your connoiseurship extends? If you are trained to do it without any visual clues or other non-taste clues, why would a change in the environment make anything seem different?

[J Acord]

Screw it, I think I will chuck in my twopenneths worth!

Going back to what I see as the original question, yes I think presentation is important in a meal. As to what percentage of importance, I don't know, but for me it ranks pretty highly.

Does the presentation of the food change the actual food itself. Well obviously no. Does the presentation of the food change the way that I taste it, to some degree yes.

Are there people out there who would taste exactly the same thing regardless of how it was presented? That I do not know.

I don't think that it is entirely possible to separate the chemical process of tasting (i.e. molecules hitting receptors in the mouth) from the emotional aspect (i.e. lighting, music, aroma and also including presentation) as both of these aspects are combined in the mind to produce the final result which we interpret as taste. Since there is no way to take the final message (taste) from one person and transfer it to another who is to say that what one person percieves as taste is any more or less correct than another? Or to put it another way, maybe the person who says that it tastes the same regardless of presentation just has a different perception than the person who says that they can taste a difference. Does that make either person right or wrong or better or worse? No. As far as I am concerned, if I am going to be served fancy plated food, then there is a good chance that I am paying way over the odds for it, and so it better damn well taste nicer than if I was served it in a greasy spoon cafe!

Anyhow, just my twopenneths worth.

[macrosan]

All I can say is...

Good God!

I started reading from page 1, and about an hour and a half later I am still here!

Not sure whether I should put my towpenneths worth in or just leave it.....

Sorry, JA, but you won't get much for tuppence in this thread I'm just reading for side-splitting amusement now

[g.johnson]

But isn't that just a question of how far your connoiseurship extends? If you are trained to do it without any visual clues or other non-taste clues, why would a change in the environment make anything seem different?

If you are trained. But no one other than Fat Guy blindfolds himself in restaurants.

[J Acord]

Sorry, JA, but you won't get much for tuppence in this thread 

Maybe I should have made it a shekel.

All together now: "A shekel for that! You must be mad!"

[Steve Plotnicki]

I don't know. I will say what I said a long time ago. You are underestimating the ability of the people with the aptitude to do this.

Do you not believe there is such a thing as taste memory, and that it can operate without visual clues?

[britcook]

But isn't that just a question of how far your connoiseurship extends? If you are trained to do it without any visual clues or other non-taste clues, why would a change in the environment make anything seem different?

I thought we were talking about the dining experience, and since when did that include "training" to exclude visual and other non-taste clues. Somehow I suspect you didn't gain your dining experiences blindfolded in an anechoic chamber.

[Wilfrid]

Can we stipulate that presentation is irrelevant to someone who's blindfolded.

JA's post was very sensible. Don't know what it's doing on this thread. I'll look back in six or so pages time and see if Steve's addressed the issue. A reminder: it's not whether it's possible for an expert, or anyone, to exclude the influence of presentation on taste. It's whether it's possible in any circumstances for presentation to have an influence at all. That's my issue, anyway.

[macrosan]

That's my issue, anyway.

You won't talk about my issue, so I won't talk about yours. Yah boo sucks

[g.johnson]

I don't know. I will say what I said a long time ago. You are underestimating the ability of the people with the aptitude to do this.

Well, if you're correct your experts are unique. As I posted above, I work with people who are highly trained at interpreting x-ray films but who wouldn't trust themselves to make objective comparisons between two types of film. (And the human visual system is vastly more sophisticated than the taste system.)

Do you not believe there is such a thing as taste memory, and that it can operate without visual clues?

Absolutely. But the fact that identification of tastes relies on memory is a reason to distrust it since memories are highly fallible. Secondly, the ability to store taste memories evolved to help make decisions like "is this thing good to eat or will it kill me?" However, the brain will have evolved to use all the data available: taste, smell, shape, colour, where it's growing, etc. I can see no evolutionary reason why an ability to analyze taste independently of other cues should have arisen. Taste memory can operate without visual clues but it will only do so if there are no visual cues.

This is borne out by the study cited by lizziee where wine experts were fooled into describing a white wine as tannic by the addition of red dye.

[balex]

I don't know. I will say what I said a long time ago. You are underestimating the ability of the people with the aptitude to do this.

Well, if you're correct your experts are unique. As I posted above, I work with people who are highly trained at interpreting x-ray films but who wouldn't trust themselves to make objective comparisons between two types of film. (And the human visual system is vastly more sophisticated than the taste system.)

Do you not believe there is such a thing as taste memory, and that it can operate without visual clues?

Absolutely. But the fact that identification of tastes relies on memory is a reason to distrust it since memories are highly fallible. Secondly, the ability to store taste memories evolved to help make decisions like "is this thing good to eat or will it kill me?" However, the brain will have evolved to use all the data available: taste, smell, shape, colour, where it's growing, etc. I can see no evolutionary reason why an ability to analyze taste independently of other cues should have arisen. Taste memory can operate without visual clues but it will only do so if there are no visual cues.

This is borne out by the study cited by lizziee where wine experts were fooled into describing a white wine as tannic by the addition of red dye.

Actually I kind of agree with SP here (yikes). I think there probably are people who really can ignore -- or counteract - the distorting effects of preconceptions and other information and just focus on the taste at a quite pure effect. I don't think there are very many of them, and I dont't think they actually work like that much of the time. But there are anecdotes about Robert Parker that seem to indicate that he is quite good at that. And probably there are other examples of freakishly adept piano tuners and so on. I think they are pretty rare -- and I am absolutely sure that only a tiny minority of people who think they have this capability actually do have it. That is one of the conclusions you can draw from the experiments discussed earlier.

[Adam Balic]

Sure these people exist. An "Ubertaster", is born once in every generation. These people are freaks and therefore do not count in the grand scheme of things. Fatguy is an Ubertaster, Plotnicki is an Ubertaster wannabe. Ignore at will. .