I suspect that the TAPS people would still manage to “feel” a presence at these sites.

. . . wine, and critical thinking.

This recent story in the Wall Street Journal* discusses the weaknesses of the common 100-point wine rating system. The thesis is that blind wine ratings aren’t particularly repeatable, even by experts; that lists of adjectives describing particular wines tend not to overlap; and that much of the wine-rating system is arbitrary and built on what pretty much amounts to a cult of personality and an elite group of emperors with no clothes.

The article makes some good points, and the existing research seems to be legit, and to back the story up. And it’s definitely good to keep these skeptical points in mind before believing dogmatically in the authority of a rating system. But, all that being said, I rely heavily on the wine rating system myself, and will likely continue to do so, even after reading this article. My typical rule of thumb is to buy wines rated 91-92 (I purchase higher rated wines when they are available, of course, but my other guide is a limit of about $25), and am generally very satisfied with them. I also feel that this strategy results in wines that are generally well-received at tastings when I bring them – I believe I typically get an above-average positive response. (Not this last time, though – yeesh, that viognier was nasty. But there was a very limited selection for that varietal, so I was not able to select one with a particularly high rating.)

However, I am perfectly willing to concede that this perception may be entirely in my head: I have not conducted blinded trials on this theory (in fact, I am one of the worst tasters in a blinded trial); I have not tested the reverse theory (that wines with low ratings or wines chosen without noticing ratings produce worse results); I have a very small sample set; and the theory is clearly based on anecdote and subject to bias, selective perception, and remembering the hits and forgetting the misses. It is solely due to a judgment call that I think the wine ratings are useful, at least as rules of thumb.

But, even if the wine rating system is flawed, there are much nastier things afoot in our wine. (You see what I did there? Feet in the wine vats? Grape stomping? That’s a pun, people!) Some nimrods out there are trying to use astrological principles to tell you when you should or should not consume certain wines. But at least that’s fairly innocuous to the consumer; where the crazy really starts to kick in is with biodynamics.

Biodynamics is a mind-blowingly stupid belief which manages to combine new-agey organic agriculture with homeopathy. Christ, homeopathy – boy, that’s really a star you want to hitch your wagon to. (I suppose “homeopathic agriculture” means you water the plants.) I mean, call me crazy, but I just don’t think that “crushed powdered quartz prepared by stuffing it into a horn of a cow and buried into the ground in spring and taken out in autumn . . . [mix] 1 tablespoon of quartz powder to 250 litres of water . . . spray under very low pressure over the crop during the wet season; it should be sprayed on an overcast day” is going to work very well! Plus, just to top things off, it manages to include astrological guides on when and how to plant – which phase of the moon is best for cultivating, for instance. So you don’t get were-wine, I guess.

This is really one of those beliefs, like homeopathy itself or scientology, where you hear a description of it and think, “This can’t really be what they believe – this has surely got to be a mischaracterization; no one can be this stupidly irrational.” Well apparently they can.

Unfortunately, biodynamics has had somewhat of a similar effect in the wine shops as naturopathic or herbal medicines have had in pharmacies: It manages to convey a slightly sciencey, slightly natural air in its name; no one knows what it’s really claiming, but it sounds kind of good; and hey, if it didn’t work, they wouldn’t be selling it to us, right? Right!? Wrong. It makes money, it’s a fad, it’s been on Oprah, so they sell it.

So do yourself and all of the wine-drinking public a favor, and the next time you see “biodynamic” on a wine label, put it back on the shelf. No matter what it’s rated.

*Of course, as has been pointed out, this is an old story trotted out periodically, similar to the stories on psychological experiment results showing that cheap wine tastes better out of expensive bottles, which come out every year around the slow-news holiday season. Still, it’s interesting, and lets me talk about wine…

Good news! The Wisest Human* AKA the TimeCube Guy is on Twitter! Bringing us such gems as

In cubed time, it’s always Halloween.

and

Time is cubed! In Marley and Me, the dog is being born, becoming an adult, becoming a senior, and dying on different corners of the cube!

and

I am filled with hate.

Mmm . . . hate. If the hate becomes too much for you, perhaps you can find relief at ThymeCube. And remember, “EARTH HAS 4 CORNER SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE IN ONLY 24 HOUR ROTATION. 4 CORNER DAYS,  CUBES 4 QUAD EARTH- No 1 Day God.” Amen.

*What a great name! And so modest! I wish I was The Wisest Human.

It’s October – time for spooooky post subjects!

OK, not that spooky. First, considering that every year local news agencies trot out stories about the dangers kids face on Halloween, and that many local police stations and hospitals offer free X-ray candy inspection, I suppose we skeptics can trot out the annual debunking that no such dangers really exist. The gist is that there have been very few, if any, legitimate cases of poisoning, deadly razor blade attacks, or other nefarious tampering with candy in the history of Halloween celebrations in the United States – especially when compared against the hundreds of millions of pieces of candy given out over that time. The majority of the documented cases of such behavior have generally been instances of fraud (hello, can anyone say “balloon boy“?), accident, or ultimately harmless (though mean-spirited) pranks – not psychotic, pre-meditated murder prevented by vigilant X-ray techs. The few cases where actual serious injury or death occurred have been inflicted by abusive or disturbed parents on their own offspring – apparently, if you’re worried about your children being poisoned or injured by Halloween candy, forget X-ray machines: make sure they don’t get any candy from inside your own house! And the story is similar for child abductions, assaults, or sacrifice in satanic rituals – injuries are much more likely to be inflicted on kids by other children or adults that they know, especially family members, and there is little evidence, if any, of an increase in abductions or satanic ritual cult sacrifices (despite a popular documentary on the subject) on or around Halloween.

And now for something completely different.

The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe this week did an excellent 5×5 podcast on the so-called Lunar Effect – the belief that the full moon affects people’s behavior – pointing out that any proposed effect would presumably be tidal in origin, which force is based on the difference in distance across the object experiencing tides. So, whipping out the trusty calculator, the Earth, with a diameter of 8000 miles, experiences a relatively large tidal effect from the moon, while the human brain, with a diameter of about 6 inches, experiences a tidal effect roughly 6.02×10²³ times smaller (holy cow, that’s Avagadro’s number! Conspiracy!) Not to mention the problem that the tides have very little to do with the phase of the moon. Or else the causative force could be strictly gravitational, in which case the force exerted by the moon is 1/20^th that of a car you’re sitting in. Or else it could be caused by light, an effect that would be dwarfed by daylight. Or a flashlight. Incidentally, there is no actual evidence (other than anecdotal) that a difference in crime rates, suicide rates, hospital visits, or any other aspect of human behavior potentially tied to the full moon (other than perhaps the incidence of not walking into trees) even exists – i.e., there’s no reason to believe there’s even a phenomenon for which to search for arguments.

Finally, in closing, and by the way, who the hell comes up with the idea to make sexy Halloween costumes for pets? I blame childnapping satanist lycanthropes.

Sometimes, not having a dirty mind can be detrimental.