Earlier this week, Tokyo was crowned world's greatest city for gourmands by Michelin, tyre manufacturer and since 1926, food review bible publisher. In total, 261 of their much sought after stars were awarded in their latest guide to the Tokyo's restaurants. When Jay Rayner in the Guardian did the math a few years ago, London had 50, Paris 98. He also offers a rundown of the cloistered top end dining scene in Tokyo, a scene that has apparently been well breached by the Michelin inspectorate.

The conferral of more stars from Michelin is probably not going to have a great impact on dining in Tokyo which is already a haven for local hardcore gastronomy enthusiasts and tourists. Not to mention Iron Chefs. (Iron Chef Morimoto's XEX restaurant received but one star).

Why do we rate a purely subjective experience like restaurants and food on a numerical scale?

Cracks appeared in the Michelin system long ago. Former guide inspector Pascal Remy wrote a book on the subject and commented in an interview in 2004 that:

It is no longer a priority to search for the good small places in the heart of France. The goal is to bring in money. We have to go to the important places, the big-name restaurants, the big groups, that's what they say at Michelin now.

Michelin in Japan does seem to be looking out for the smaller restaurants - a few seat a handful of people at a sushi bar - but the prices are inversely related to their diminutive size. French chef, Joel Robuchon, himself the holder of a full constellation of stars, has noted his dismay at the guide's "backward-looking ostentatious criteria for luxury", ostentatious criteria which he can play to his advantage. 

The role of expectations in the experience of eating and the judging of deliciousness is inestimable. We can give objective marks for whether a table cloth is wrinkled or not, but taste is more difficult as our expectations guide what we taste and our expectations are deeply individual. There may be measurable, hard science to defining what is taste - and how it can be manipulated - but the experience of tasting is life at its most subjective. Every food critic comes to the table with more prejudice than the average diner; presumably that is why they're paid to do it.