[klickitat jim]

Right on. I give Marshall all the cred because thats where I saw it. As with many things... nothing new under the sun. If I recall I think Marshall credits McDole and Narziss (sp?). In any event, its MY method now!

[HoosierBrew]

And the Germans were doing it long before either of them bought their first ale pail.

For sure, I get that. I read of Tasty's method and tried it before knowing that it went back to Narziss (or earlier).

[toby]

Scientists never set out to prove something.

Except they do, in the more archaic sense of the word, i.e. "The exception that proves the rule" or "a mathematical proof". 

[Joe Sr.]

You're very nearly right but using the words in the wrong way.

As has been pointed out lots of times, homebrewers are prone to bias. Huge amounts of it.

Something has been bothering me about this thread and the "objective" and "subjective" discussion, but the words escaped me until your post.

Denny's tests aren't an attempt at making an objective analysis of beer or process.  They're an attempt at making an unbiased analysis.

Beer, as Jim has pointed out, is inherently subjective since we all taste and experience it differently.  If you wanted an objective analysis, you'd need to have a lab analysis and the usefulness of that is debatable.  Paraphrasing Denny, we drink the beer not the numbers.

I think that testing processes is great, and all you guys who do it and record it are helping all of us (or most of us).  But I also believe that Brewday is correct that there are certain improvements you can make to your process or brewing that have a clear and indisputable benefit.  That benefit may not be broadly applicable to other systems, but when you've improved your beer you generally know it.

Take the shaken, not stirred, starter approach.  Denny recorded his first experience using it and said that it he thought it produced a better Noti Brown (did I get that right?  Maybe it was a different beer) than he had made previously in many many batches.  I think that right there tells you that even though we're all biased, clear improvements are obvious.  But maybe I'm reading too much into or misremembering that experiment.

[charles1968]

Scientists never set out to prove something.

Except they do, in the more archaic sense of the word, i.e. "The exception that proves the rule" or "a mathematical proof". 

The archaic meaning of prove is test, so the expression really means "the exception that tests the rule". It sort of sums up the scientific method, which is about using predictions to test hypotheses.

Maths is different as it uses deductive logic, not inductive logic. Yes you can prove a mathematical theorem is 100% true without problem and it will always be true. You can't do that with a scientific theory. Unless you're a lawyer.

[charles1968]

Denny's tests aren't an attempt at making an objective analysis of beer or process.  They're an attempt at making an unbiased analysis.

Yes exactly.

Beer, as Jim has pointed out, is inherently subjective since we all taste and experience it differently.

Oft said but not necessarily true. Physiologically we're all similar. Our brains run a lot of the same circuits. There are differences between us but the similarities are probably greater. If lots of people like the same beer, it's probably more than a coincidence.

But I also believe that Brewday is correct that there are certain improvements you can make to your process or brewing that have a clear and indisputable benefit.  That benefit may not be broadly applicable to other systems, but when you've improved your beer you generally know it.

Take the shaken, not stirred, starter approach.  Denny recorded his first experience using it and said that it he thought it produced a better Noti Brown (did I get that right?  Maybe it was a different beer) than he had made previously in many many batches.  I think that right there tells you that even though we're all biased, clear improvements are obvious.  But maybe I'm reading too much into or misremembering that experiment.

Sure there are lots of things brewers can do that make measurable or perciptible improvements to beer, but there are probably at least as many things that we delude ourselves about. We overestimate our own abilities all the time, including the ability to notice a difference. Then we go online and tell people they need to buy a brew fridge/use kettle finings/ferment cold whatever because it made our beer so great.

[HoosierBrew]

I think that testing processes is great, and all you guys who do it and record it are helping all of us (or most of us).  But I also believe that Brewday is correct that there are certain improvements you can make to your process or brewing that have a clear and indisputable benefit.  That benefit may not be broadly applicable to other systems, but when you've improved your beer you generally know it.

I agree with all of this. I appreciate and look forward to the results of all the testing done here. And the triangles definitely have their place, in terms of comparing different processes, ingredients, conventional wisdom. But I agree that some improvements are just pretty self-evident. Like back when I stopped pitching a single smack pack and made starters, got temp control, learned to control pH, started buying vacuum sealed hops instead of LHBS hops from the jar, etc. Those changes made drastically better beer that didn't need a verification test.

[Joe Sr.]

Beer, as Jim has pointed out, is inherently subjective since we all taste and experience it differently.

Oft said but not necessarily true. Physiologically we're all similar. Our brains run a lot of the same circuits. There are differences between us but the similarities are probably greater. If lots of people like the same beer, it's probably more than a coincidence.

Yes, but even a single individual will perceive flavors differently on different occasions depending on any number of factors (perhaps you have a cold, perhaps you're depressed, etc.).  Perhaps you can get close to objectivity with enough data points, but each individual taster in a triangle test (or whatever) is reporting their subjective experience.  For most of the analyses we're discussing, I don't think you have enough data points to eliminate the subjectivity.  But you can eliminate the bias.

Sure there are lots of things brewers can do that make measurable or perciptible improvements to beer, but there are probably at least as many things that we delude ourselves about. We overestimate our own abilities all the time, including the ability to notice a difference. Then we go online and tell people they need to buy a brew fridge/use kettle finings/ferment cold whatever because it made our beer so great.

No doubt.  I think there's a continuum from truly obvious improvements to those that maybe we think are so due to bias.  The truly obvious ones (such as not using water with chlorine) aren't ones we wind up discussing so much.

[toby]

The archaic meaning of prove is test, so the expression really means "the exception that tests the rule". It sort of sums up the scientific method, which is about using predictions to test hypotheses.

Exactly my point.

[denny]

To a scientist maybe, but not in court. The engraving above the judges bench in our superior court says " Truth is the foundation of justice." I always want to add "unfortunately, we only deal with facts". Facts are objective, truth however is the subjective understanding and acceptance of the meaning of those facts. Im sure you've heard "what's true for me may not be true to you", thats how it works. We dont convict on facts... we convict on how twelve peers interpret their understanding of the facts. Truth...

In the end, the same is true and a fact about beer. Beer is to be enjoyed and perhaps interpreted by people based on their own experience. Subjectivity. If they like it, hate it, loose their minds over it, that is their truth about that beer. Some expert may have examined it and put it to the best test and received peer review, but the opinion or truth of the person with the beer in their glass is all that matters.

Fact is objective
Truth is subjective

I pretty much agree with all of that....although I'm glad we're not in court.  It's obvious that there are 2 ways to evaluate a beer...subjectively, as in "is this a good beer".  And objectively as in "did the change I made have an effect on the beer".  When I make a change in a beer and I want to know if it worked, I go for the latter.  When I want ot just sit down and enjoy a beer, it's the former. As I say in my seminars, there's a difference between tasting and drinking. At least for me.

[mchrispen]

As I say in my seminars, there's a difference between tasting and drinking. At least for me.

You should really write a book about that!

[denny]

As I say in my seminars, there's a difference between tasting and drinking. At least for me.

You should really write a book about that!
[/quote

Good idea!

[denny]

As many times as you both harp about this being a hobby, it's a business for you now, and you naturally have an agenda to discredit anybody who threatens your value proposition.

While it has become a business, to say that we have an agenda to discredit those who disagree is not only untrue, it's insulting.  My only agenda is to see if I can help homebrewers make better beer with less effort while having a great time doing it.  If people want to pay me to deliver that message, so be it.  But it's the message, not the money (if you knew how little it is you'd change your mind!) that's the reason for what I do.  To imply otherwise shows you have no idea of who I am.

[HoosierBrew]

I find it amusing that the same people who criticize brewers that make a profit from trying to HELP brewers improve also belong to the 'Wouldn't You Like To Know' club that tells people to go find their own damn info in $200 German texts. I call BS.

[toby]

No, you've made it your business, same as Denny and Drew. You're marketing Brulosophy branded kits and t-shirts. Denny and Drew are marketing a book. Brulosophy and Experimental Homebrewing have become products which you, Denny, and others are marketing to make money.  Providing Ninkasi award winning recipes was the value proposition that Gordon and Jamil used to market their books. "Mythbusting" has become yours. As many times as you both harp about this being a hobby, it's a business for you now, and you naturally have an agenda to discredit anybody who threatens your value proposition.

How much money do you think they're making from this?  Seriously.  Books (at least homebrewing books) are not exactly a method to get rich (even slowly) for authors, generally speaking.  It's not like there's a market for film rights.  Brewing Classic Styles: The Movie!