Well, that is odd, considering the fact that I think you are in complete agreement with the author :).
Oenologists would have you believe that there are such things as 'good wines' and 'bad wines'. Wines with all kinds of complexities and wines that are 'flat'. They, experts on consuming these specific works of art, are the ones suggesting there is an underlying objective version of reality.
The author, on the other hand, points out, with experimental evidence, that your expectations trip you up. You say:
How can anything experiential not involve expectations? It
can't. It's ludicrous to think otherwise.
but the point of the article is not "it involves expectations at all". The point is: the expectations can be decisive. That's a prime argument for the irrelevance of an underlying objective version of reality.
Perhaps that's the problem: I'm not a member of the target
I don't think you are, because what is 'ludicrous' to you, is something most people would deny being an important influence in some professional or hobbyist interest of theirs.
People are already commenting to explain they can taste the difference between X and Y. People don't understand, or can't imagine, that there are circumstances in which they can't distinguish between a glass of red wine and a glass of white wine. If you'd have asked these oenologists upfront, they would've been insulted you would even ask.