. . . 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…