What Defines a "Food Expert"?

[Carrot Top]

The one and only thing I can guarantee in this is that any person who declares him/herself to be an expert is assuredly not an expert!  The wise writer, speaker, chef, winemaker can indeed be proud of what he/she does but that does not make them polymaths.  That is one of the reasons I so like the way that all lectures at the College de France are closed- the speaker asking "are there any questions, problems or objections?"  They really mean that! 

In a phrase, like the attainment of Nirvana, one is always on the way to being an expert. The person with the least bit of wisdom truly hopes that he/she will never, never think they have reached that point.  The moment you think you have, you have lost it completely.

←

I was hoping you would chime in, Rogov. And I am in agreement with what you say here.

Admittedly, the starting point of this question for me was not set in the place of people like the writers you named who have given proof of their level of expertise in the form of a book or other writings. The starting point was in thinking about "the average person" who expounds within the form of this new method of mass communication, the internet. And the question was specifically raised in my mind in thinking of websites where anyone can write in and post their own version of what is right or what is wrong with the meal at the restaurant they ate at last night.

It seemed to me that, depending on the person and the tone of course, a person who chooses to communicate their opinion on a thing through the mass media of the internet must be fairly well assured as to their expertise on the subject.

Therefore my question. "Are we all experts on food?"

I can see it both ways. As someone who has the ultimate respect for anyone elses taste whether it be for canned spagetti or for foie gras, I can say that "to each his own" and that each person certainly knows their own tastes best.

But then again, as an ex-chef, I can grow somewhat hot under the collar when reading opinions on a meal posted in the mass media by "just the average guy" who seems to think that they are an expert, just because they eat.

Therefore. . .the question.

You know I like to talk.

Edited September 3, 2005 by Carrot Top (log)

[Carrot Top]

An expert is labeled such by others.  And it's a moving target -- depending on the "expert" and the "other."

I'm not sure I've heard or seen the term "food expert" all that often.  I've seen "wine expert," "cooking expert," "pastry expert," etc.  "Food expert" may simply be too broad.

←

Right. To divide the thing into different, tighter categories makes it easier to discern and decide.

[Carrot Top]

An "expert" is someone who was previously "pert"?

Like, Rachael Ray will be one some day?

SB 

←

It can happen to the best of us.

[Carrot Top]

Just looked up russ' terms for my own edification.

pundit- 1. A source of opinion, a critic. 2. Learned person.

tyro- 1. A beginner in learning something.

Hmmm.

[Carrot Top]

The one and only thing I can guarantee in this is that any person who declares him/herself to be an expert is assuredly not an expert!  The wise writer, speaker, chef, winemaker can indeed be proud of what he/she does but that does not make them polymaths.  That is one of the reasons I so like the way that all lectures at the College de France are closed- the speaker asking "are there any questions, problems or objections?"  They really mean that! 

←

I am curious, Rogov. About what percentage of the students at the College de France do respond to that final question at the lectures?

Just trying to add to my bundle of things I'm dragging along looking for the signposts to Nirvana, you know.

[Daniel Rogov]

Melissa, Hi...

You asked: "About what percentage of the students at the College de France do respond to that final question at the lectures?"

Interestingly, many students do rise with questions, challenges and objections and that is the true beauty of the system. Think of the intellectually honest professor (literally one who professes) or think of the critic. Anyone can agree with you and tell you how wise you are but if you, as one who professes or criticizes (or both), want to continue your own development, those who disagree intelligently are far more important to you.

A good question makes you aware that you forgot to include something in your lecture or your review; a challenge indicates that you may not have explained your point well enough and have to find a better way to do that; and an objection well placed may even show that you were wrong in whole or in part in your hypotheses or theories. And nothing (!!) is better for the honest intellectual than being proven wrong for that opens a whole new world, one of exploring how you went wrong, of perhaps finding ways that are more accurate, more appropriate.

Being agreed with or thought to be right all the time might make you a guru. It will not, however, force you to continue yourself to develop! And with regard to both those who profess and those who criticize, let us realize once again that no-one should be more open to criticism.

That may sound somewhat idealistic. I make no apology for that.

Edited September 4, 2005 by Daniel Rogov (log)

[Carrot Top]

You make me smile, Rogov.

In a very good way.

That entire world you just described sounds like it rings with beauty.

.............................................

But I must add, this time, that you have confused me with Melissa. Which is not at all a problem for me but goodness knows I might get her into trouble if people think I am her. If that makes sense.

..................................................

Uh uh uh. Mixing up your women. . .dangerous business. How many of us do you have dangling round, dear?

[Daniel Rogov]

Returning to your original question of what defines the true expert – no problem at all. The true expert in the culinary realm is the person who has a deep and broad knowledge of and is aware of the inter-relatedness of the human sciences of philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, history and economics; has a thorough working knowledge of the workings of physics, chemistry, agronomy, weather and geography; and knows how each of those relates to each of the human sciences listed above.

Ah, but this is only the beginning, for in addition to all of the above they must have a full understanding of the transformation of raw materials into edible delicacies (e.g. "the magical transformation of an egg into a soufflé), a deep knowledge of the tools available to cooks at all levels (from the home cook to the chef who presides over the kitchens of a magnificent restaurant). They must also have vast experience in both eating and dining (one day I will go into the differences between those). And more – they must develop a deep knowledge of the various and sometimes shifting sets of standards by which culinary creations are judged. And of course, they must have discriminating palates.

My guess is that the last one on the planet to have truly and fully qualified was Curnonsky. And, to paraphrase an old joke, as much as I admire Curnonsky, I'm not sure he really "made it all the way".

[jamiemaw]

as a journalist, i see my role not as being an expert, but more in acting as a bridge between all the experts and all the people who are curious.

←

Hear, hear. Nicely said, Russ.