> The two wines were actually the same white wine as before, but one was dyed with tasteless red food coloring

Yes, Oenologists assumed that the wine which was red was actually... red wine. This study is always quoted and is a sham IMO. What this is saying more than anything is "the placebo affect does work." which is totally true.

But IMO it doesn't say a whole lot about wine tasting being BS.

Of course this says a lot about wine tasting and the claims made by connoisseurs about their wine tasting abilities.

It's the kind of information that's a bit too upsetting though, even for non connoisseurs to want to accept.

Then how would you do a blind test instead?

By actually making it blind so the color of the wine dies not predispose your expectation for specific notes or mouth feel.

If you read that and think no one can taste the difference between a Sauvignon blanc and a Cabernet I don't know what to tell you...

They were students and as such did not dare to question authority or were afraid to make a fool of themselves.

This "study" has no value. I can certainly distinguish between the average $10 bottle and $50 bottle.

Actually the study does have a value: It induces people to think there are no differences between wines and keeps the prices for the good stuff lower. So please continue to post it.

> They were students and as such did not dare to question authority or were afraid to make a fool of themselves.

What's your basis for making this silly assertion? These were Oenology students. It's not like they pulled random students off campus.

Have you done a double blind test? How do you know?