Here an expert, there an expert, everywhere an expert expert.
Just what exactly makes someone an expert? There is a tendency to think of an expert as someone who knows everything about a subject, and to be at least to some degree, unimpeachable.
The dictionary definition only requires that it be a person with some special knowledge or skill about a subject. So knowing one side of complicated issue is enough to be considered an expert.
I was reading one of my technical trade publications the other day. I was fascinated by a report on the wide acceptance of screw top closures for wine in New Zealand and Australia. Besides being pleased at the general trend towards screw tops, I was intrigued by comments from several very qualified experts.
One side was saying that oxygen is not required for wine to age in a bottle (more on this in a later blog). The other side said oxygen was required. Personally, I thought that the issue was settled years ago by the eminent eonologist (wine scientist) Emile Peynaud, who's experiments showed that oxygen was not required.
I was surprised by the controversy. I was further surprised to see that both sides had performed studies that supported their positions. I don't know why I was surprised, as a scientist myself I consider a study to be nothing more than a challenge to others to duplicate. Only after every study has the same results would I consider an issued to be proved one way or another. This is the scientific method.
It was a wake up call to remind us all that we are only human. We will believe what we want to, until we are presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
What pray tell does this have to do with wine? Don't believe everything you read. Make up your own mind. Use wine reviews, whether they are mine or anyone else's as a jumping off point. Experiment, try new wines, keep your mind open, and most importantly, trust your own taste.
The dictionary definition only requires that it be a person with some special knowledge or skill about a subject. So knowing one side of complicated issue is enough to be considered an expert.
I was reading one of my technical trade publications the other day. I was fascinated by a report on the wide acceptance of screw top closures for wine in New Zealand and Australia. Besides being pleased at the general trend towards screw tops, I was intrigued by comments from several very qualified experts.
One side was saying that oxygen is not required for wine to age in a bottle (more on this in a later blog). The other side said oxygen was required. Personally, I thought that the issue was settled years ago by the eminent eonologist (wine scientist) Emile Peynaud, who's experiments showed that oxygen was not required.
I was surprised by the controversy. I was further surprised to see that both sides had performed studies that supported their positions. I don't know why I was surprised, as a scientist myself I consider a study to be nothing more than a challenge to others to duplicate. Only after every study has the same results would I consider an issued to be proved one way or another. This is the scientific method.
It was a wake up call to remind us all that we are only human. We will believe what we want to, until we are presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
What pray tell does this have to do with wine? Don't believe everything you read. Make up your own mind. Use wine reviews, whether they are mine or anyone else's as a jumping off point. Experiment, try new wines, keep your mind open, and most importantly, trust your own taste.
1 Comments:
Amen. Too many people blindly follow the ratings of the Experts, only to find over-priced, over-advertized, uninteresting wines for all their expensive magazine subscriptions.
Post a Comment
<< Home