Comments on: Food snobbery http://bellylove.wordpress.com/2008/05/01/food-snobbery/ Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:59:35 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Hillary http://bellylove.wordpress.com/2008/05/01/food-snobbery/#comment-22 Hillary Fri, 02 May 2008 15:50:03 +0000 http://bellylove.wordpress.com/?p=25#comment-22 All I can say is check these out: http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/81-graduate-school/ AND http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/24-wine/ All I can say is check these out:

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/81-graduate-school/

AND

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/24-wine/

]]> By: Brian http://bellylove.wordpress.com/2008/05/01/food-snobbery/#comment-16 Brian Fri, 02 May 2008 00:07:09 +0000 http://bellylove.wordpress.com/?p=25#comment-16 I couldn't agree with this quotation more. Most of all, I agree with the fact that it is restricted to <i>humanities</i> departments, and does not include science departments. Humanities departments, like wine snobs, are all about <i>seeming</i> to be profound, without all the tedium of actually <i>being</i> profound. Just think about the qualitative similarity between the following two sentences: 1. Humanities: "I found his analysis of the use of the oboe in liturgical music during the reign of Louis XIV to be stimulating, yet cursory." 2. Oenology: "I found the aftertaste of the vast majority of the 1998 Sonoma pinots to be circumlocutory, yet phrasmotic." Just in case you missed some of the more obvious similarities, here are two of them: (i) both sentences deal with subjects about which reasonable people don't care; (ii) both sentences don't mean anything (in fact, I just made up the word "phrasmotic"). Science, on the other hand, ignores such intellectual frippery and concerns itself with what really matters. Note: in the context of oenology, "what really matters" is getting drunk. I will leave it up to others to determine whether the so-called "social sciences" deserve to be counted among the rarefied and lofty pursuits of science or among the dilettante mental masturbation of the humanities. I couldn’t agree with this quotation more. Most of all, I agree with the fact that it is restricted to humanities departments, and does not include science departments.

Humanities departments, like wine snobs, are all about seeming to be profound, without all the tedium of actually being profound. Just think about the qualitative similarity between the following two sentences:

1. Humanities: “I found his analysis of the use of the oboe in liturgical music during the reign of Louis XIV to be stimulating, yet cursory.”

2. Oenology: “I found the aftertaste of the vast majority of the 1998 Sonoma pinots to be circumlocutory, yet phrasmotic.”

Just in case you missed some of the more obvious similarities, here are two of them: (i) both sentences deal with subjects about which reasonable people don’t care; (ii) both sentences don’t mean anything (in fact, I just made up the word “phrasmotic”).

Science, on the other hand, ignores such intellectual frippery and concerns itself with what really matters. Note: in the context of oenology, “what really matters” is getting drunk.

I will leave it up to others to determine whether the so-called “social sciences” deserve to be counted among the rarefied and lofty pursuits of science or among the dilettante mental masturbation of the humanities.

]]>