"Arguing past one another" -- or, in a more common form in the UK "at cross purposes" -- is indeed an excellent analysis of our (apparent) disagreement.
...
It arises from the distinction between the verb 'to document' and the noun 'a document'. The verb, as I understand it (and indeed as my OED understands it), means "to prove or support something with documentary evidence."
I wasn't familiar with the UK (or really even the US) term, but thanks for that. Always nice to hear about how things are done in another part of the world.
Using your definition of the term, which is indeed one (though one of several) defintions of the verb I found after a brief search, then I'd absolutely agree that, by the definition of the term, if you're "proving or supporting something" then there must be an antecedent present to "prove or support". Using the definition upon which my position was based, (that being "to furnish with documents" or "to furnish documentary evidence of", with the definition of "document (noun)" being, "a writing conveying information") there is clearly room within that definition to provide for purely informational (as opposed to persuasive) purposes for producing material, whether it be photographic or text.
I'd still dispute the chef/recipe example, because I cannot readily imagine that anyone who did not like a dish (or at least see its merits, even if they found it unpalatable) could write convincingly (let alone persuasively) about it.
I think this bit, really, boils things down to the essence of the difference at play here. Even ruling out the possibility of deception, or other more complex motives (financial gain, for example), you're approaching this from a fundamentally different starting point, and with a different end-goal in mind than I am. You're using words like "convincingly" and "persuasively" where I'm talking about simply informing. It's not that either argument is wrong, but using different definitions and justifications, it's impossible (and really, pointless) to try and reconcile the two.
At best I can say, "Despite several attempts at this, with [for example] more and less garlic, and greatly varying quantities of white wine, I have yet to produce an example of this dish that I would ever bother to cook again. Nor have I ever, in a restaurant, encountered an example I would order again."
This highlights, again, the difference in definition. Take as a counterpoint, someone who absolutely relished the dish. They may write something like, "This recipe is highly adaptible to your specific tastes, and the other ingredients hold up well to widely different balances of garlic and white wine. Changing the amounts of these two ingredients can greatly impact the overall taste of the dish, but all variations have been bright, flavorful dishes that I'd be proud to serve at my restaurant."
Obviously, these opposing viewpoints can both be true, because they're a subjective account of a personal reaction to the taste. The middle ground (or perhaps not even on that spectrum) would be a more objective account: "Adding more garlic will help bring out the lactic, buttery flavors in the cream sauce, while reducing the garlic will permit more of the flavors from the basil and rosemary to come through. Similarly, you can reduce the white wine used, which will have the effect of sweetening the overall flavor, while increasing the quantity will impart a bright, citric note to the sauce, as well as a somewhat cleaner aftertaste."
I'd say that the third option does a better job of documenting (again, using the definition I've had in mind) the actual flavors or the recipe, as opposed to the first two, which really aren't documenting the flavors at all, but rather the personal reaction of the writer to those flavors. Obviously, the medium of photography muddies these waters to an extent, but I think this was a good illustration of how semantics will affect things.
Incidentally, where does one train to be a beer taster? It sounds like fun.
While there are schools/classes that one can attend, I've received the vast majority of my training through employment at a brewery, and being a member of their quality control taste panel.
Such (considerable) experience as I have acquired since the 1960s has been gained entirely on an informal basis.
The vast majority of this training is an exercise in memorization combined with experiential familiarity. The memorization is for things like appropriate glassware, style history, and guidelines of acceptability in the various aspects if the tasting experience. Experiential familiarity is knowing diacetyl when you taste it, and knowing what it is...which then leads back to your memorization which helps you determine whether that taste is a fault.
The real key is being able to translate the decidedly nonverbal information gleaned from a proper tasting and convert it into the appropriate terminology to objectively and understandably describe the experience.
Even then, I'd dispute how much "impartial, accurate information" you can dispense about witbier/Weißbier, of which I am very fond. I say this precisely because I'm fond of it and you're not. Which of us is impartial and accurate?
For the record, while I'd tend to choose other styles over a witbier, there are some really good ones out there, and I have nothing against the style as a whole. That said, accuracy comes through training (is that intense aftertaste "harsh" or is it "bitter"? Is that color brown, copper, or amber?) and impartiality comes through effort and having the descriptive tools gained through the training at your disposal.
I'm not saying that either of us would be a better or worse reviewer, but I definitely know that, with a witbier, I should expect a pale straw to golden beer, with considerable haze being perfectly acceptable, and a generous, dense head with good retention.
Taste-wise, one should expect slight to moderate sweetness, tastes of bready/buscuity maltiness with a light wheat flavor. Zesty citrus flavors will likely also be present, along with some spiciness, usually coriander. Hop profile should be very modest and reserved, only strong enough to keep the beer balanced and crisp. While a slight flavoring from the hops may be acceptable, too much impact from the hop profile will overwhelm the other flavors, which should not happen.
There are other aspects of the tasting experience that could be considered (mouthfeel, carbonation, aftertaste, aroma, etc.) but the above would be an example of a time when one might document something and strive to be as objective as possible to good effect, and if done correctly, the results from two people should not really betray whether they enjoyed or despised the beer as a whole.
Many of my friends are puzzled by that, because typically, if I'm reviewing a beer, I'll do the objective analysis followed by a wholle subjective overview. Thus, when we're out, if we try different beers, I will taste and maybe praise a barleywine by saying that it's a good barleywine. Then , later on when I mention that I didn't care for it, they're confused...at which point, I explain that it was a good barleywine, and it's not the beer's, or the brewer's fault that my taste buds simply weren't receptive to their efforts.
