« on: October 07, 2015, 03:04:09 PM »
I think we wonder about differences from ingredients and differences from process. For the sake of simplification, I'm narrowing it to just plain difference, regardless of cause. Its important to think about wether or not the difference is important before choosing a way to determine difference.
In a criminal trial, things must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If there is no doubt for which there is a reason, the thing is considered proven. In a civil trial, the thing must only be proven by a preponderance of evidence. A weighing out of evidence showing that more likely than not, it happened. If there is 1 reason to doubt but 2 reasons not to doubt, then you have a preponderance of evidence it happened. Whereas in the criminal trial there must be evidence it happened and there can be no reasons to doubt.
So what? Well, sometimes we hold trial on presented ingredients issues or process issues. What level of proof do we require? Is that level of proof in line with how much difference is made and how important that difference actually is? If, for a home brewing process, we require greater level of proof than is needed to put a Murderer in prison... maybe that's going too far.
For a minute, imagine you're trying to repeat a beer. Make it the same as the last one. Is that possible? The person who would require absolute evidence would say No. Its impossible to rebrew a pefectly identical beer. I would say Yes. As far as it is only going to be tested in my mouth and compared to my memory, yes, I can rebrew beers that are the same according to my level of proof.
So, if I am looking to make a change, will that change be discernable in my mouth as compared to my memory? And is the discernible difference desirable? Then, is the ingredient or process change worth it to obtain the difference?
That thought process shows the importance of personally experiencing changes with home brewing, rather than putting too much weight on the credibility of the claims of others. Ultimately, beer is a personal experience. It doesn't matter that a scientific analysys proves a difference, or if some expert says so. If its not there, for you, its not there.
Case in point. I brewed a beer with US05 sprinkled dry. Then I read an expert who claimed that 50% of them die because of osmotic preasure. So I rehydrated. Then I read that liquid yeast was better so I bought Wy1056 and followed the instructions. Then I read that it wasn't enough yeast, so I made a starter. Then i read that repitching was way better, but i didnt repitch enough, then i was repitching way too much. Then I read that my starter needed to be on a stirplate. Then I read that it needed to not be on a stirplate, but shaken instead. Most recently, I chose to hit it with O2 because I'm too lazy to shake. And pitch at high krausen, whereas I used to chill and decant because I was told that the spent wort was bad. Now unspent high krausen wort seems to be the thing.
So in that last paragraph theres a lot about what I had read or been told but nothing about what I experienced from those different methods. All the expert stuff is just academic. A good starting point if you dont know what to do. The only thing that really matters is what you think of your results with your beer. And when comparing changes, memory is all that really matters, because its awfully hard to preserve a perfect sample from last year's beer in order to do a triangle test.
Some times some of us need to prove things to others, but all of us need to prove it to ourselves.