Why Does This Nonsense Persist?

By -
Consider this:

"In the Middle Ages, wine was commonly drunk (at least in wine-growing areas), but it was a weak concoction and popular mainly because - unlike water - it was safe.

Did any of you ever forget a glass of wine on the counter for a couple of days? (Hey, if you haven't, then your benders just haven't gone on long enough, OK?) It gets pretty moldy, doesn't it? A weak dilution of wine in water is totally insufficient to make infected water safe for drinking. Yet people write such nonsense over and over again.

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy10:00 PM

    I don't know enough about wine-making to say for sure, but I think you might not be blowing this guy up. I thought this typical claim meant something like, "Before modern plumbing and state-controlled sewage systems, the average man didn't have access to clean drinking water. It was easier for a place to make wine (with clean water at the major source) and then distribute the skins of wine to everybody, who would take it on trips etc."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous10:42 PM

    Beer exhibits the same qualities, probably even more so that wine. Only spirits avoid this particular quality prone to fermented products. However, fresh beer and wine are quite devoid of certain impurities due to the process of fermentation, but really, the only reason that people preferred such things was: they get you drunk, and they were often falsely perceived as being safer than water. Of course, they weren't any safer than water in most cases, and they certainly did not offer much in terms of hydration.

    Certain myths continue to perpetuate for reasons that I cannot explain. It's kind of like how some people still believe that Columbus set out to prove that the Earth wasn't flat, even though it is well established that he was well aware that the Earth wasn't flat, his mistake was in knowing the scale of the Earth's size.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ken B9:23 AM

      Beer involved boiling so was in general safer (before it started to spoil).

      Delete
    2. Current10:23 AM

      Ken B,

      That's right. The boiling of the wort kills many germs.

      John Snow noted in the 1854 cholera epidemic that people who drank only beer (such as brewery workers) had a much lower rate of infection.

      Of course this doesn't help the case of wine, especially watered down wine.

      Delete
    3. gcallah10:27 AM

      Yes, I agree, beer and wine might be safer than water. But this author seems to imply that watered-down wine will disinfect the water. Wine is not strong enough to do that.

      Delete
  3. Lord1:51 AM

    Alcohol does evaporate. This was probably just an observation on its preservation in storage though clean water stores well too (in the dark).

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more