I tasted some sparkling wines that to me were way better than Dom Perignon. And Pino Noir (forgot particular brand) I get for 20 Canadian pesos again tasted to me way better that some wine I bought for $120 to check why the fuck does it cost so much.

So yes I am pretty sure that some wine is objectively better than sulfuric acid but the rest is just a matter of individual taste. It does not matter that the tester can distinguish between 2 buttles of the same wine and tell the year it's been produced.

> I tasted some sparkling wines that to me were way better than Dom Perignon.

The thing about champagne is it produced using the traditional method [1]. As long as other sparkling wines are also made using the same method, they can be quite good. My favorite non-champagne sparkling wines are Crémants[2]. Much cheaper than champagne, but as good or better depending on your personal tastes

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_method [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparkling_wine#Cr.C3.A9mant

Créments tend to be much sweeter than Champagne, hardly comparable, not like I enjoy either. To me, Champagne is basically a nostalgic drink at this stage.

What’s the exchange rate on Canadian pesos?

Use your imagination if Google is not helphul

I would personally put many things such as coffee and beer there - I've grown in cultures that have and consume them a LOT, but I'm 45 and still hate the taste of both. Acquired taste one way or another, and I never bothered acquiring it.

(Interestingly enough though, two of my buddies also never had a taste for them, until in their late 20s they literally decided to "get into it". Boggles my mind if you're not caffeine addicted in your impressionable teens, why you'd actively TRY to develop the taste in your adulthood... But they did, With entirely predictable results :)

I deliberately tried to get into funky Belgian beers in my 30s.

My reasoning was: other people like these, I think they taste gross, but I'm always telling people they can learn to like things, and if I did learn to like them, I'd expand my range of possible pleasures.

I did end up liking them. Not love them, but enough to appreciate them.

I really doubt that there is anything in the world that is enjoyed by a large group of people that I couldn't eventually get myself to like. And then: how wonderful! More things you like.

That's generally my take as well. There's a handful of things that I just don't like in terms of food/beverage. Most of it is mouth feel, I don't like fat chunks, or raw meat... just feels off. As to taste, other than oysters and any kind of diet ginger ale, not much I wouldn't try a again or for a first time. And even the two of those I tried more than once. Spending plenty at a few places to try oysters in various preparations from restaurants that are respected for them. Nope, I'm done. As to diet ginger ale, they all taste particularly nasty to me.

As to trying to develop a taste for things like coffee, beer or wine... I can only say culture is probably the biggest part of it. I tend to have coffee about once a week, mostly for the caffeine... if I have it more than once or twice a week, it doesn't work. But it really helps me get through being up earlier than I'm naturally inclined to for several days. I'd still like it to taste halfway palatable, so I tend to use vanilla flavored SF syrup, stevia and heavy cream that tends to soften the flavor. But I can imagine someone who really likes chocolate or coffee to go that direction, as they amplify each other.

In the end, culture and personal tastes. There is a lot to be said for fitting in.

Coffee can vary largely in terms of taste, between pull lever ristretto and a French press, it can be considered as two different drinks. Drink a 100% robusta espresso (or a blend containing some Large amounts of Robusta) and then a anaerobic coffee from equador or Panama (gesha, Ethiopian hybrid varietal and the like), and one would taste like an Italian espresso while the other a fruity drink.

Same goes with beer or wine, quality goes up with price but in the end, it's all a matter of personal preference.

Considered what you wrote, your palate is looking for sugary stuff, and this wouldn't work for coffee, chocolate, beer or wine.

Sugar kills everything.

You are partially right about the variability in preferences for sugar, e.g. there are people who like very much sweet wines, but who do not like at all dry wines and there are others who have the opposite preference, e.g. my mother liked only sweet wines, while my father liked only dry wines.

Nevertheless, the effect of sugar is more complex. For example, I do not like cocoa alone or in too high concentration, as too bitter. Sugar is pleasant, but when alone I do not care about it, I prefer most food with no sugar at all.

On the other hand, I find addictive the combinations of sugar with certain flavors, e.g. sugar + cocoa or sugar + vanilla. So, at least for me, the combination of sugar and cocoa has a very different effect than each component alone.

Taste is almost definitionally subjective and culturally mediated. There are trends in flavors, and the ability of a vintner to match those trends is indistinguishable from producing “better” wine.

If you take the drink outside of its reference culture and try to measure how “good” different examples are, you’re going to get nonsense out.

Food and drink don’t exist in a vacuum. To the extent that you live and participate in the culture of wine (I do not), you may find value in spending for a “better” product. On the other hand, I will happily pay a premium for beers with tasting notes like “barnyard” and “wet horse blanket” or rums tasting of “petrol” and “rotten bananas.”

> I'm sure there are people that can identify different tastes. I question whether or not those tastes are a sign of objective quality, or just something they've been conditioned to think of as good.

I think my professor meant "objective" in the sense that someone with a trained palate will agree with others who have a trained palate. I.e., they're not just saying, "well this tastes good to me." Experts are generally consistent between each other about what tastes good and what tastes bad.

Of course this doesn't necessarily mean that these preferences are objective in a God-given sense. And from what I could tell it does seem that different subcommunities have their own preferences. Californian wine tasters seem to prefer bigger and bolder flavors than French wine tasters, who like subtler flavors.

> I question whether or not those tastes are a sign of objective quality, or just something they've been conditioned to think of as good.

I mean, that’s kinda a different question right? Like it’s not “objectively good” as in “you’re objectively wrong if you don’t like it.” It’s “objectively good” as in “there are objective standards that have been agreed upon by a large group of people.”