> But in matters of taste, and specifically of wine-tasting, claims of 'expertise' have repeatedly been proven dubious.
I don't know about wine tasting but I've seen many claims that, in fields where objective data is limited, there is no knowledge, no quality, etc.; that reality is some extreme of relativism where everything is arbitrary preference. (What a depresssing, flat nihilism that results in!) For example, it's often applied to the arts and to things challenging, 'highbrow' - things that tend to make people feel intimidated or inferior.
The argument amounts to, 'if I can't measure it, it doesn't exist', and I think that is dubious. It's dubious not only on its face, but because most of what humans do requires subjective judgment; very little depends mostly on objective information. Finally, in fields where I've gained expertise (or more sophisticated perception), I've come to see that I had been missing out previously.
I've seen those claims many times - and people often believe what is repeated, regardless of evidence - but not proven.
I don't know about wine tasting but I've seen many claims that, in fields where objective data is limited, there is no knowledge, no quality, etc.; that reality is some extreme of relativism where everything is arbitrary preference. (What a depresssing, flat nihilism that results in!) For example, it's often applied to the arts and to things challenging, 'highbrow' - things that tend to make people feel intimidated or inferior.
The argument amounts to, 'if I can't measure it, it doesn't exist', and I think that is dubious. It's dubious not only on its face, but because most of what humans do requires subjective judgment; very little depends mostly on objective information. Finally, in fields where I've gained expertise (or more sophisticated perception), I've come to see that I had been missing out previously.
I've seen those claims many times - and people often believe what is repeated, regardless of evidence - but not proven.