Replies

This seems like bad journalism and possible bad research.

Why was the researchers’ thought “hmm what could explain this vanillin? Must be vanilla.” and not “what has vanillin in it and could be associated with wine?”

Oak would be the natural first thought for someone who drinks wine, knows much of anything about wine, botany, chemistry, etc...

An online magazine that caters to wine folk would... or should, answer that question in the article. “Hints of vanilla” is so common for oaked wines and even an amateur drunk who goes to wine tastings a few times a year would probably know this.

Was there something involved in the research that eliminated oak as a candidate explanation? If so, the article should address this. If not, the article is remiss about not addressing it.

Why was the researchers’ thought “hmm what could explain this vanillin? Must be vanilla.” and not “what has vanillin in it and could be associated with wine?”

Because they specialize.

For the most part experts do not go outside their own little tiny little square of knowledge. The reason is there is so much to learn and know in that one area that stuffing their heads with more generalize knowledge would be a waste of valuable time and brain space.

It is why you read some of the things put out by experts and think, "you have GOT to be kidding me". It is not that they are stupid, they are not. But ignorant outside a certain space? Oh yes.

Which is why they should run their theory's by a few generalists before announcing them to the world.

But they don't.

I am not exactly sure why.

But it is the reason I am absolutely again experts being put in charge of anything. They can tell you everything about the drop, but they often do not even see the ocean before them.