Neal Rosenthal Sez...(long/boring/pot-stirring)

What determines when an infection has spoiled something and when it has enhanced it--can science tell us that? Don't many infections yield products that we take delight in--cheese, vinegar, etc? Many people clearly enjoy a bit of brett in some wines. Can science tell them that they are wrong to enjoy it? Young kids don't like a lot of smells (that result from infections) that adults have learned to enjoy. Are the kids right and the adults wrong?

No argument with any of your inferences, but we are not talking about right or wrong. We are talking about subjectivity and objectivity. Objectivity is that which can be measured--subjectivity cannot be measured, which is why some people like Brett and some don't. Yet, whether you like or hate Brett, it can be measured. Plus, whether or not you like Brett, based on the intensity of the infection, Brett takes the wine down a dangerous path in the bottle--objectively.

"What determines when an infection has spoiled something and when it has enhanced it--can science tell us that?"

Re, a young wine with Brett. Wait a few years and the infection will likely hand you the answer.

Hedonism is subjective--no doubt about it. But saying that there are no objective measures connected to wine is plain nonsense and it shows either disdain or a lack in understanding of the science behind wine production. Or maybe it shows an inability to be objective--about anything.

Re, a young wine with Brett. Wait a few years and the infection will likely hand you the answer.

That fact that a piece of fruit will eventually rot doesn't mean that it isn't wonderful when perfectly ripe. The same wine that will eventually be crappy may be perfect at an earlier stage. But I'm arguing to be argumentative now.

I grant you that laboratory science can detect aspects in a wine with objectivity. I guess the larger question is the value of that objective knowledge to the drinker. Are you speaking more about quality control than wine appreciation?

Re, a young wine with Brett. Wait a few years and the infection will likely hand you the answer.

That fact that a piece of fruit will eventually rot doesn't mean that it isn't wonderful when perfectly ripe. The same wine that will eventually be crappy may be perfect at an earlier stage. But I'm arguing to be argumentative now.

I grant you that laboratory science can detect aspects in a wine with objectivity. I guess the larger question is the value of that objective knowledge to the drinker. Are you speaking more about quality control than wine appreciation?

I'm speaking about both.

Example: two people taste the same wine and love it. But one person loves it for its low acidity while the other loves it for its high acidity. Subjectively, each is right--they each love what they love. But objectively, one of them might be proved wrong by a simple test of the wine's total acidity. If the one that is wrong happens to be a wine critic or a judge at a wine competition, what good is that evaluation?'

I was recently asked to review a book about wine that was written by two avid wine consumers who think they have a wealth of knowledge. The book proved that they have some knowledge, but that they also lack in many areas. At one point, they claimed that a major identifying factor of Gewurztraminer is its high acidity. The grape happens to have a reputation for being difficult because to get it at peak usually requires accepting high pH and low acidity. These two people obviously have a problem identifying the acidity, but that doesn't mean they can't like or dislike Gewurztraminer. It does mean that what they advise others about the wine is likely false--a total acidity test will prove one way or the other.

Staying with Gewurztraminer, what if you smell rose petals and someone else smells malt? You can each still like what you smell, but by analyzing for phenolics you might discover that one of you is talking about a quality in the wine that technically is non-existent and one of you is identifying a quality in the wine that actually exists. Which one is right and which one is wrong? I don't know, but I do know that people who listen to the one talking about something that is non-existent might be shocked when they pour the wine that person recommended!