There is a difference between talk of objective qualities of an object, and talk of if it is "good".
"Good" is the language of opinion, and is inherently a subjective matter. If you want to speak about qualities like "it is exactly as its maker intended it to be" or critical acclaim, then there is less presuming language that you can use to do that.
I think that the failure to realize this accounts for a large part of why people talk of 'wine "snobs"' or 'movie "snobs"'.
I think experts are more able to talk about objective features, but they get labeled as snobs when they proclaim that they've grown out of their initial subjectivity. ("Anyone with good taste will find this collection of features to be good and that collection to be bad; anyone else doesn't know what they are talking about.") When really all that's happened is their ability to articulate preferences and domain knowledge has developed. It's like adults looking down on childish behavior or something.
"Good" is the language of opinion, and is inherently a subjective matter. If you want to speak about qualities like "it is exactly as its maker intended it to be" or critical acclaim, then there is less presuming language that you can use to do that.
I think that the failure to realize this accounts for a large part of why people talk of 'wine "snobs"' or 'movie "snobs"'.