another_jim wrote:{start OT}
I think the older Wittgenstein was wrong as often as the young one. ...snip... In essence, he went from being an eggist to being a chickenist in things linguistic.
{end OT}

snip...

So the productive argument is not about standards versus no standards, but about which (or whose) standards. For coffee, I'm recommending a standard based on skill and effort all along the supply chain. But I'd be happy if people used any standard of their choosing as consistently and clearly as possible rather than just reporting their raw likes and dislikes.

Standards are only useful if they help me make choices in the world but they don't substitute for preferences. People's preferences are still interesting, often enough they point outside of the conventional wisdom (there are examples on this site). I don't want to have to like a coffee because its made well. I don't want to have to like a coffee because it conforms with someone's idea of skilled production. I'm happy for different groups of people to like coffee for entirely different sets of reasons. I don't feel obliged to believe someone when they say that they like stale coffee, there might be a whole sub-population of people who do, and that is fine with me and worth thinking about. I don't NEED their preference to be measurable in a scientific manner to accept that it points at something.

The less OT and more interesting thing in this context about the later Wittgenstein is his acknowledgment that language does not encode objective meaning, that what we mean is negotiated as we speak. The transition from his need for objective meaning to a contingent one is what I was referring to.

its true, in the chemical sense, tasting is not subjective, because the molecules that make up the flavors are real. however, the very real fact is that we have different abilities to sense those molecules and no way to verify how they stack up against others unless we calibrate against known standards (and this applies to all the senses). but just because tasting isn't subjective doesn't mean their isn't a ton of variance in its detection.

i run analytical instruments everyday, and a couple times a year my lab and a handful of others participate in an interlab calibration as a diagnostic to make sure the numbers we're generating are still accurate and within the defined window of error for our instruments. 6 standards of known concentrations are sent to each lab, numbered only 1-6. all the labs return the concentrations they measured for the same standards and all the results are reported. there is no way to know if you are off when you are generating the data, unless you participate in a program like this. No two labs EVER generate the exact same data. are the concentrations of the standards subjective? no. do the "experts" differ in their evaluation? absolutely.

another_jim wrote:Now, most of our preferences are idle. It may be polite and democratic to say our opinions in these idle matters counts as much as those of experts, but they actually don't. We don't spend as much time or money on our idle preferences as on our passions, so it doesn't have as much impact (individually) in the market. Nor will anyone seek out our advice on stuff we neither know nor care about.

this comment of very true (i feel the same way about desserts), but is it applicable regarding taste in/of coffee on a site for people who are passionate about coffee?

People don't need to prove anything to like something, as if scientific arguments were the only ones valid because they can be proven logically. There are a lot more points of view to chose from other than science. Do artists need to learn how the eyeball works? And how about a chef. Does he need to be an expert on chemistry? Enjoying a cup of coffee is not about science... except maybe here in this forum where it may be actually true. It is possible.

I do believe taste buds are 'developed' and can be more discerning ..

Arpi is right when he says he doesn't care about chemistry, he just cares what he likes.

In comparing Wines to Coffee, Living in France everyone is a Wine expert. Many have developed taste buds, and I even know a woman who can blind taste a wine and tell you within 40 km where it comes from with 90% success !!

Does she know more than the bum with his Thunderbird wine. Well, no, he likes his thunderbird and no one can tell him any different.

But she can and people on that level will enjoy their experience differently.

Its nice to know you have developed tastes, and have reached a level of appreciation not everyone can attain, and want to share that level with novices. But not everyone is ready to hear it unfortunately.

I am though

I think we need to distinguish between taste as in preference or "having good taste" and tastes as in flavours.

Understanding the latter can help us appreciate a good fruity coffee that is underextracted and one that isn't - the difference between floral and sour.... and that will increase our pleasure, which isn't the be all and end of all of life, but....

Wittgenstein. Completely with the Coffee Frog there. Interesting when you take it from language to the construction of identity and all.

Which is, funnily enough, not irrelevant.

Neither are colours.

If I want to make orange and someone explains that I can do that by mixing red and yellow, that contributes to my pleasure and understanding. But we need to have seen red and yellow together, and orange, and agreed to call them that.

And how I feel about them can be changed by my context - red the colour of sensual passion, red the colour of destructive anger etc.

Similar in short to the Yirgacheffe fruity but not the Yirgacheffe sour of someone who doesn't understand grinding fine and dosing moderately to extract properly.....

So I'm with Jim in many ways.

Naming flavours really can help.

But no one can tell us how we fell about them... though they can influence it.

God bless Arpi!

Back to work now....

Cheers

Mike

Mike -- my point exactly! The paramount issue when it comes to taste is the language of taste, that is how we communicate our perception of it to one another in a meaningful way. Learning to taste well, that is, learning to observe and describe the tastes you experience in a way that others who have done the same can understand where you're coming from.

I think that taste standards fit into this very well, i.e. a group of people like the SCAA deciding, collectively, what constitutes a well-balanced drink. One must understand that what's implicit in that standard is that it's not intended to be a universal truth, it's intended to be a measure by which a large set of drinks are compared. You can agree that the SCAA's standard rewards drinks that you like or not, but that is largely irrelevant to what the standard accomplishes.

... which is not to suggest that the standard is bulletproof in its consistency, either. Few sets of measuring tools in this world are completely, consistently accurate at measuring whatever they seek to measure. And humans' taste receptors are much more varied than, for example, a few cheap sets of calipers. Again, there's a margin of error with every tool that monitors everything that can be 'meaningfully' measured, and it's not that interesting for someone to say, "Foul! Foul! This taste rating system is crap because everyone's taste buds are different! It's genetic, it's scientific, and you're wasting your time!" Congratulations again, captain obvious, right? My experience with eating and drinking with other people is that taste experience is remarkably similar, most of the time, and that's good enough to make this interesting for me. Which is not to say that I am trying to be philosophically self-centered: my perception is that most people on this board would agree that we have very meaningful discussions of taste when we all try the same coffees, even across different rest times and different equipment, preparation methods, etc. I could be wrong about that, but I think I'll stick around till I find out for sure.

another_jim wrote: BTW, congrats, the Brits win again. Do I need to move from Chicago to London now to get really good espresso?

Having had a surprise layover in Chicago, trying to escape ATL back to London, then I think things are looking pretty good for you. Had a couple of lovely drinks at Intelli Broadway, and having tasted Mike Phillips' espresso backstage, I think Chicago has nothing to worry about. The brew recipe he used, as is on the Intelli site, was a pleasant surprise for me as I'd come to (foolishly I admit) expect big updosed shots, pulled short, from most places/baristas in the US. That, however, is a whole other ballgame.

I think the espresso coffee learning experience has been focused exclusively on the bean itself without regarding the subject. It could be that the other half of the espresso equation 'enjoyment' is in the subject itself and has nothing to do with understanding coffee, but with understanding people. And understanding people is understanding circumstances, desires, ways of being, etc.

another_jim wrote:I believe this is nonsense.
People have a right to "see" a green light and an empty intersection when the light is red and there's traffic, but they shouldn't drive, and they should go to an eye doctor.
Why should "tasting" something wonderful when they put crap in their mouths be any different? Granted, they aren't a public menace, but they do need help.

Shame! Hang your head! I can't countenance wise people making bad analogies.

However, I also tire of people saying, essentially, "if it feels good, drink it." Why spend your time on a site like HB if only to grease the bumpy road to Nirvana with silly nostrums? (and I don't even know what that word means!)

Taste is cultural, and as such, it's learned. Furthermore, I believe strongly in the regrettably-diminished notions of "professionalism" and "expertise." What's good science? That which is accepted by the community of scientists. What's good teaching? That which professional educators determine works well. What's good coffee? That which Jim and 4 other contributors to this site say it is. I'm here to learn, not to play with the big boys.

Sometimes culture needs the heavy hand of authority. That's why I tune in to HB. And regarding that stoplight / crap-in-mouth analogy, absolvo te; go and sin no more.

Martin wrote:Taste is cultural, and as such, it's learned. Furthermore, I believe strongly in the regrettably-diminished notions of "professionalism" and "expertise." What's good science? That which is accepted by the community of scientists.

So . . . are we talking cultural or scientific? I'm confused.

Martin wrote:What's good teaching? That which professional educators determine works well.

Leaving aside the fact that every wine educator I know agrees with what I've said in this thread, AND not that I would EVER expect this to happen, but . . .

Martin wrote:What's good coffee? That which Jim and 4 other contributors to this site say it is.

And IF (like I said, it's a BIG "if"), Jim and the four other contributors opine that the best coffee on the planet is the hazelnut-flavored coffee beans provided by "Mr. Flavor Coffee Roastery & Emporium," would you automatically agree? Or would you try it for yourself and see? Oh, heck -- let's make it simpler:

If Jim and the four other contributors opine that the best coffee on the planet is the hazelnut-flavored coffee beans provided by "Mr. Flavor Coffee Roastery & Emporium" Pikes Place Roast at Starbucks, would you automatically agree? Or would you try it for yourself and see?

I'm not trying to argue, but I am trying to see where you draw lines . . .

Cheers,
Jason

In the FWIW Dept., I would go out and try it for myself, before I decided. On the other hand, if Jim and the four other contributors decided that the Kopi Luwak coffee roasted by ___________ was the best on the planet, I'd pass -- I can't imagine spending that much $$$ for coffee beans, so I'd just take their word for it and acknowledge that they believe it's the best coffee on the planet . . .