Agreed. Not a science at all. But with a standardized systematic approach to tasting, you will see more consistency in analysis of wines than if people are encouraged to taste and use random terms which means something only to them. I have sat in tastings were people disregard entirely the appearance and only briefly comment on aromas and even then from a “what are they” perspective as opposed to including comments on intensity and development.
Not everyone picks up flavors the same way is very true. That is why the guesswork of who tastes how needs to be removed and make the actual identified favor characteristics part of the puzzle as opposed to deciding if they are correct or not. If we add to that such things as flavor intensity, finish, sweetness, tannins, alcohol level, and body and then use all of that to assist us in determining te quality and readiness for drinking, it has been shown very clearly we can get a great deal of global reference benefit out of the process.
High alcohol fruit bombs do win awards in the US a lot, but that trend is waning now too. There are clear movements towards lower alcohol which means picking earlier and having less fruit sugar to play with. Tannins will be rougher with these wines, but they have aging potential and are going to be far more in balance than a lot of the stuff of the past 10-15 years out of Napa.
Really well stated. When tasting such young wines, what's going to taste good ? The fruit forward ones. Unfortunately, they generally have little aging potential. Except at the very top, there's a lot more $$ making wines that are quickly accessible. No cellaring and waiting for a return on your capital. Remember when you wouldn't even look at a Barolo or Barbaresco for 20 years ?