photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
jCross | all galleries >> Galleries >> My Words > April 20, 2007
previous | next
20-APR-2007 John Cross Photography

April 20, 2007

http://www.airshowbuzz.com/videos/view.php?v=eeabb63b


Let the competition begin! I went to Spec's today for a reload, the liquor cabinet was TOTALLY EMPTY. That is a sad state of affairs and I have apologized to myself for letting this happen as well as for the extinction of the dinosaurs. I decided that it was about time to start enjoying the finer things of life. My boys got the ball rolling, so Ginny can blame them if this gets out of hand.

People have asked me "Is that Gold Label stuff pretty good scotch?" Well, being a retired scientist I knew that was an impossible question to answer. "Pretty good" has to be taken into context. You need a control! So while at Specs, this bottle of Glenfiddich 12 year old special reserve jumped clean off the shelf into my cart. Fortunately, it did not break the Johnny Red and Bombay Sapphire. The cool thing is that it comes in a neat metal container, which I gave Ginny (she was thrilled) because she likes to save containers among other things (She would give John Cooper a definite run for his money!).

I retired to my room and did some taste testing. The results were quite interesting. The Gold label is very smooth with almost a floral bouquet (I have been reading up on this scotch stuff on the internet). Very very good. The Glenfiddich is, of course, somewhat rougher, but very tasty, great flavor. Then it hit me, what an idiot I am. The Glenfiddich can't be a control because it is a single malt while the Gold Label is an 18 year old blended Scotch. I let more than one variable get loose. I should be ashamed. But there is light at the end of the tunnel. Next time I go to Specs, I will get a new control. Actually two new controls. Now you see, if I make the same mistake again, I will need 4 new controls. This might actually spawn into an exponential liquor cabinet. Cool thought. Hey guys, don't tell mom, OK?

Canon PowerShot S70
1/20s f/4.0 at 13.2mm full exif

other sizes: small medium original auto
comment | share
Dave Beedon23-Apr-2007 06:44
St. Brendan's Irish Cream is also worthy of an experiment. I support both the Scientific Method and the what-the-heck method. Cheers!
Christiane and Richard 22-Apr-2007 22:19
For scientific integrity purposes, it may be wise to use a blind experimental set up. Mom pours them in numbered glasses, you down them, she collates the data. Sounds like a good date.
jCross22-Apr-2007 14:44
Hmmm, Bailey's Irish Cream.... Sounds like an interesting potential project.
jCross22-Apr-2007 11:55
Damn, Rich, I completely forgot about them spurious temporal effects.
Richard 21-Apr-2007 21:40
I agree that large quantity samples are of the utmost importance. Sampling n*1.75 liters (where n = some positive integer, preferably 2 or greater) of each spirit under consideration will greatly reduce the standard error in this extremely relevant experiment. Getting those standard errors down will allow the recognition of scotch superiorities at higher confidence levels.

I think though that not all variables are being properly accounted for in the current setup. A properly designed experiment should also control for possible unforeseen dependencies and systemic bias. This requires tasting must occur at different times of day so that spurious temporal effects be removed. Perhaps samples must also be taken at different locations to control for any geographical effects on the response.
Dave Beedon21-Apr-2007 19:50
Pass me the Bailey's Irish Cream, please.: no test required.
Guest 21-Apr-2007 18:01
your son is absolutely right. you engineer types will alway be more practical than us biochem guys. my thinking was clouded by another "test" i was performing with a yeast byproduct. rebel yell will work, but it doesn't have the charm (i.e irritating throat burn) that muirhead has. i recommend some 100LL instead. and the de broglie wave generator....
jCross21-Apr-2007 17:18
Rob, Trust me, I won't use urine for a control. Carl (chempilot) is one of those bio guys that has his thinking clouded by biological things. He is right, water will work for a control. I thought that Rebel Yell might work for the other one. Let me know what you think. If you concur, I will run up to Specs and get a handle (large size is important because it minimizes lot to lot variability.) I wonder what Rich might think about this experiment.
Robert 21-Apr-2007 14:07
Dad, please do not use urine as a control. It may seem like a decent idea 5 hours into the experiment, but it is NOT!!! My idea is to make a website scotchtastetest.com and publish your findings using your same dry humor and scientific wit. Equiped with pictures and perhaps video testimonials, this could be a great resource for information or fun. Perhaps a business idea? Call me, we will discuss.
Dave Beedon21-Apr-2007 02:48
This is an impressive example of scientific rigor, with the exception of the erroneous control. You neglected to mention whether you performed this testing within an environment properly shielded from errant DeBroglie waves (the non-errant waves are moot). Thank you for apologizing for the extinction of the dinosaurs---it's about time someone fessed up. That no bottles in your cart broke is a relief. Please do not allow any more variables to get loose: the neighbors might be annoyed.
Guest 20-Apr-2007 23:56
haha! this is why i love science! my recommended setup: Muirhead Scotch Deluxe Blend and 1926 Macallan. controls: water (negative control)and urine sample (Muirhead positive control). and you definitely need N>30 for a nice gaussian distribution....