A simple test of the root day effect

WINE TALK
21

I’m no biodynamics apologist but I find the practice very interesting.

Surely you can admit that through human history, logical ‘proofs’ have been proven wrong as science advanced. I know little on the subject but I’d say quantum mechanics defies logic.

22

This kind of discussion and the need to try to eliminate/minimize variables when testing something as volatile as wine on two different days- where taste/taste perception itself is so difficult to control- is exactly why the root day debate will remain forever. Entertaining for sure at least.

23

If you do something like this, have someone else find out if it’s root time or fruit time and not tell you which is which, then do your tasting at the provided intervals.

Maybe you are an ‘opposite taster’ and will prefer root to fruit.

I have had extensive ‘23 and Me’ genetic screening and I lack the gene for root/fruit influence, therefore taste the wines simply as they are, rendering the root/fruit problem moot, to boot!

I also lack the gene for religious faith.

For all I know, the Flying Spaghetti Monster actually exists, but my genes prevent me from perceiving His noodly divinity.

I lack the gene for making broccoli or Brussels Sprouts taste bad, but have the gene for being able to smell asparagus pee.

All sorts of permutations beyond simple old root, fruit, nothing absolute!

24

Not when there isn’t even an inkling of what “force” might be acting differently from one day to the next to cause a wine to “perform” better or worse.

25

The constellations are human constructs mistaking a three dimensional reality for a two dimensional delusion. People who believe in this pseudoscience are just being foolish. You might as well pray to Zeus or predict your future with goat entrails.

26

But what force in quantum mechanics acts to have different outcomes when observed vs not observed? As far as I know, even gravity is still widely mysterious.

I’m just acting as devil’s advocate. My interest in biodynamics has more to do with the preparations and living systems in a vineyard.

27

Nowt so queer as folk.

28

… leads me to the next question about “travel shock” and the arguments that surround that idea.

29

Quantum mechanics explains seemingly contradictory observations with rigorous mathematics of wave functions and probability. Gravity is “mysterious” only in that it has not been fully integrated with quantum theory. The math is solid, and observed results coincide with predictions made by the theories. Electrons and magnetism are just as mysterious, and James Clerk Maxwell condensed their behavior into a set of equations that transformed the world into what we now take for granted.
What have Astrology and Theosophy done for us lately?

P Hickner

30

At least “travel shock” can potentially be explained by chemical changes triggered by mechanical jostling. No one has ever demonstrated anything of the sort, but it is not relying on some unseen, undefined, and immeasurable force.

P Hickner

31

So what? That’s not a proof of their absence. It ain’t even in the ballpark of a proof. You want to claim a proof, you gotta show the math. And there’s only about a zillion variables in that equation, good luck solving it.

Sure, there’s no plausible difference, and I personally doubt that ‘root days’ make any actual difference, and we should all be at least a little skeptical about any claims made for them.

But if you wanna talk about proofs, you’ve got some math to do.

32

Hitchen’s razor. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

33

This. There is no rhyme or reason to the traditional Western constellations or the assignment of them to various elements, nor am I aware of any explanation how stars that often aren’t anywhere close to one another and which can be hundreds of light years from Earth can have any influence on life on this planet while more massive stars that are much closer don’t.

34

Bio calendar is beyond stupid is the hypothesis.

I’ll be coravining multiple bottles of multiple wines for this blind and inviting some somms to do the same (without telling them why), hopefully giving me scientific proof to use against my crazy bio producer friends.

35

It’s exactly this kind of logic that is so dangerous to people who don’t really understand… logic. You can’t propose some cause and effect, when there is literally no known basis for the linkage - and then claim that it can’t be disproved because no one can conclusively demonstrate that it’s not true! It’s the scientific analog of asking “have you stopped beating your wife?”, a logical fallacy.

I could postulate any crazy linkage between random events and a particular outcome, but that doesn’t make it true, or even worth the time it takes to consider whether it could be true.

36

Actually, quantum mechanics is quite logical, indeed it is rigidly mathematical in its attempt to describe the world of particles too small to be adequately described by the simpler equations of mechanics (thus, the name “quantum” mechanics). Out of QM does come some seemingly odd predictions of behavior (only because we live in a world of large objects, and not sub-atomic particles), which turn out to be real. Thank quantum mechanics for the transistor (just to name one example) that lead to the chips and ultimately computers which allow this forum to exist.

37

I don’t think you understand the concept of proof, and the role it plays in science (or, more correctly, the limits of the role it plays in science).

38

Russell’s Teapot seems appropriate here. Is there a Russell’s Wine Bottle maybe?

39

Hold on, I’m mailing back my Chemistry Ph.D., and notifying the Nobel Prize winners I’ve worked with [wow.gif]

40

I stand by my statement. Lots of folks do lots of things without understanding their theoretical underpinnings.

You may now have the last word, I’m done.