Laphroaig

"no bias" is impossible, since there are so few Islay whiskies available, and even a modest enthusiast as I can tell the difference between the distillers. Or, if the judges are inexperienced to the point that they cannot tell, then ...

John

Erm...the competition includes many many more whiskies than only the Islay marks.

cheers,

Henry

Erm...The OP (now erased) suggested that Laphroig swept all categories in a recent "blind" contest. My response was that this is not impressive, because anyone with vague knowledge of scotch would be able to tell Laphroig apart from other Islays without seeing the labels--the notion of blindness, then, is a misnomer. Obviously the judges could also tell Laphroaig apart from non-Islays. My criticism questioned the authenticity of the "blind" aspect of judging, implying bias on the part of the judges. Your response neither refutes nor addresses that critique.

Well you could go to the site and see if you think the tasting was done with fairness or not. They have a contact address for any questions you might have. :)

Lew/+Silat

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag carrying the Cross" Sinclair Lewis

I don't doubt that the judges liked Laphroaig better than the other entries. I doubt the (1) the implications of the contest being touted as "blind" and (2) the possibility of any objective whisky tasting contest with qualified judges at all.

Here's why. A whisky tasting contest is a matter of aesthetics--"which tastes better/best?" is fundamentally a question of axiology, of value. Aesthetic frameworks can be culturally located--to speak of aesthetics as personal makes no sense; the discussion is dependent upon trends and agreement. Aesthetic frameworks consist of both notable patterns that are relative to the culture groups from which those patterns emerge, and differences within those patterns (differences are the primary concern). The differences are ultimately decided by subjective matters, or else they are random. When judgment on something is unanimous (e.g., water tastes better than poop), then two possibilities exist: one is that no real judgment has been made, because it is matter of actual truth, and therefore not an aesthetic concern; the other possibility is that the judgment is subjective, but within a context that the constructed discourse functions in a way such that all people (within the control group) agree on the particular matter. Which of these it is debatable, the debate between Enlightenment tradition and postmodern thinking, and it carries ontological implications. But this problem is not applicable to the matter at hand, unless we can all agree that Laphroaig is the best whisky, hands down, regarding a particular set of criteria. If we do, then we must agree that Laphroaig is king or that the criteria are bunk. At least one of these is the case, since we don't all agree that Laphroaig is the best whisky. Therefore...

Declaring Laphroaig the "winner" of a scotch tasting contenst is a case in point or aesthetic theory on a basic level: if (a) the judges did not know it was Laphroaig, then how could they possibly be qualified to judge scotch; if (b) the judges *did* know it was Laphroaig, then it hardly matters whether or not the drams were labeled.

Now, we can probably all agree that I should shut up! ;-) I will, but first I'm going to have a dram of Laphroaig CS

John