Hilarious journal article on "bullshit" in wine ratings

Originally posted by DYCSoccer17
Some ratings on this site read like horoscopes. List enough shit, and you’re bound to be correct on a few of them.

my favorites are those which wrap the commercial description’s list of ingredients, if available, in 3rd grade prose. if not available, we get another "hoppy, malty, caramel. lingering finish" rating, same as a million others.

This reminds me of reading through the BTI beer ratings in AAB. Some of those descriptions they give are hilarious.

He makes one big mistake though. "If I haven’t eaten it, it can’t be used as an aroma descriptor"



I don’t have a habit of eating wet cardboard boxes, but I do know that an oxidized piss lager smells like wet cardboard.

The Quandt guy is doing nothing with Frankfurt’s article except using it as a fig leaf pre-text for a long, non-scientific diatribe about wine reviews with made up content. Frankfurt clearly uses the term ’bullshit’ as shorthand to refer to social actors that in a Habermasian sense approach a discourse under the pretext of emancipation with an underlying instrumental ambition.

Quandt however uses the ’bullshit’ concept in the vulgar sense of "stating made up stuff".

It is funny to a degree but it’s far from being social science if you ask me.

Well it was published

Originally posted by humlelala
The Quandt guy is doing nothing with Frankfurt’s article except using it as a fig leaf pre-text for a long, non-scientific diatribe about wine reviews with made up content. Frankfurt clearly uses the term ’bullshit’ as shorthand to refer to social actors that in a Habermasian sense approach a discourse under the pretext of emancipation with an underlying instrumental ambition.

Quandt however uses the ’bullshit’ concept in the vulgar sense of "stating made up stuff".

It is funny to a degree but it’s far from being social science if you ask me.

Maybe you should do a little research on Richard Quandt. He’s an extremely well-respected economist from Princeton, so I’m comfortable with his credibility and qualifications.

That can’t be denied and the editorial panel is quite impressive too. Still - as Feyerabend has amply shown there are other motivations in science than truth...

And besides I don’t mean to say I don’t necessarily agree with a lot of what’s in the article. I’m just not sure whether it would have been more appropriately published in the wine supplement of Home & Garden rather than in a peer reviewed journal of social science.

Considering the level of editing ("not being two fussy"), it’s hard to imagine it’s a publication that matters.



’bullshit’ as shorthand to refer to social actors that in a Habermasian sense approach a discourse under the pretext of emancipation with an underlying instrumental ambition.



Who said bullshit :)

I have read a little Habermas and quite a bit about Habermas. Like wine writers, he likes to use really complicated terms to describe everyday activities

Also, I just entered an old rating of Three Floyds Arctic Panzer Wolf. It has scorched earth in it’s commercial description. It mostly tasted of hops though