[klickitat jim]

Since Denny's objection was directed at my comments, I find this statement to be both confusing and frustrating.  Care to clarify?

Hmm not trying to be unclear. My guess (and of course Denny will clarify) is that to Denny there's an objective quality to 'knowing a truth' and to him the only way to do that is to test. Without testing you only have your subjective truth and a lot of people act as experts on that basis.

But in reality this is a hobby with a lot of practices that will yield success and a lot of it is artistry. I think people get obsessed with the objective truth but that's why my form of brewing personality is different from Denny's and Marshall's and probably yours too.

Great way of putting it, objective vs subjective. Again, I think both are important. If you are seeking improvement its very helpful to analyze your beer with an objective view, but in the end the whole point of beer is purely subjective.

Yep, except for one thing.."truth" isn't subjective.  That's opinion.

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

[charles1968]

Since Denny's objection was directed at my comments, I find this statement to be both confusing and frustrating.  Care to clarify?

Hmm not trying to be unclear. My guess (and of course Denny will clarify) is that to Denny there's an objective quality to 'knowing a truth' and to him the only way to do that is to test. Without testing you only have your subjective truth and a lot of people act as experts on that basis.

But in reality this is a hobby with a lot of practices that will yield success and a lot of it is artistry. I think people get obsessed with the objective truth but that's why my form of brewing personality is different from Denny's and Marshall's and probably yours too.

Great way of putting it, objective vs subjective. Again, I think both are important. If you are seeking improvement its very helpful to analyze your beer with an objective view, but in the end the whole point of beer is purely subjective.

Yep, except for one thing.."truth" isn't subjective.  That's opinion.

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'm glad scientists don't use the legal definition of truth.

[Jeffinn]

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

Amen to that brother!

[brewday]

As for basing your knowledge on unblind tastings - I think Denny's objection (if I'm going to put words in my co-author's/host's mouth) is to people acting as authoritative experts without the due diligence.

Since Denny's objection was directed at my comments, I find this statement to be both confusing and frustrating.  Care to clarify?

Hmm not trying to be unclear. My guess (and of course Denny will clarify) is that to Denny there's an objective quality to 'knowing a truth' and to him the only way to do that is to test. Without testing you only have your subjective truth and a lot of people act as experts on that basis.

But in reality this is a hobby with a lot of practices that will yield success and a lot of it is artistry. I think people get obsessed with the objective truth but that's why my form of brewing personality is different from Denny's and Marshall's and probably yours too.

Great way of putting it, objective vs subjective. Again, I think both are important. If you are seeking improvement its very helpful to analyze your beer with an objective view, but in the end the whole point of beer is purely subjective.

Yep, except for one thing.."truth" isn't subjective.  That's opinion.

Clear as mud.

Denny/Drew:  Let's cut the crap.  I don't pretend to be an authoritative expert on anything.  Read through my comments again.  I'm merely saying that I made a change, and as a result my beers improved, that they went from point A to point B.  I stand by that.  That doesn't mean I'm finished trying to improve them, or that I'm finished exploring new ideas, or finished seeking the wisdom of true experts such as yourselves.  I work hard to improve my brewing.  When I believe I have accomplished that in some way, notwithstanding an absence of rigorous testing, it does not mean that I'm acting like an authoritative expert without due diligence.  That's insulting.

[klickitat jim]

Since Denny's objection was directed at my comments, I find this statement to be both confusing and frustrating.  Care to clarify?

Hmm not trying to be unclear. My guess (and of course Denny will clarify) is that to Denny there's an objective quality to 'knowing a truth' and to him the only way to do that is to test. Without testing you only have your subjective truth and a lot of people act as experts on that basis.

But in reality this is a hobby with a lot of practices that will yield success and a lot of it is artistry. I think people get obsessed with the objective truth but that's why my form of brewing personality is different from Denny's and Marshall's and probably yours too.

Great way of putting it, objective vs subjective. Again, I think both are important. If you are seeking improvement its very helpful to analyze your beer with an objective view, but in the end the whole point of beer is purely subjective.

Yep, except for one thing.."truth" isn't subjective.  That's opinion.

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'm glad scientists don't use the legal definition of truth.

Im not certain, but in a way science does understand the difference. One beleives something to be true... hypothesis. Then goes about proving it to be a sort of fact called a theory. Its kind of similar, seems like anyway. I find ot interesting that when science has irrefutable evidence they still call it a theory. It seems science leaves room for doubt, though in our daily jargon we refer to things as "scientific" as though that leaves no room for doubt.

[Phil_M]

Im not certain, but in a way science does understand the difference. One beleives something to be true... hypothesis. Then goes about proving it to be a sort of fact called a theory. Its kind of similar, seems like anyway. I find ot interesting that when science has irrefutable evidence they still call it a theory. It seems science leaves room for doubt, though in our daily jargon we refer to things as "scientific" as though that leaves no room for doubt.

That's how I see it. If you don't believe in gravity that doesn't mean it's not there.

IDK if you'd call me a scientist or not, with half an engineering degree and a job as a senior technician.

[PrettyBeard]

Im not certain, but in a way science does understand the difference. One beleives something to be true... hypothesis. Then goes about proving it to be a sort of fact called a theory. Its kind of similar, seems like anyway. I find ot interesting that when science has irrefutable evidence they still call it a theory. It seems science leaves room for doubt, though in our daily jargon we refer to things as "scientific" as though that leaves no room for doubt.

That's how I see it. If you don't believe in gravity that doesn't mean it's not there.

IDK if you'd call me a scientist or not, with half an engineering degree and a job as a senior technician.

Believing in gravity doesn't mean it is actually there either.  It's simply the best model we have to fit the observable phenomena.  Science is inherently subject to faith in observation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle), and causality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#Possibility_of_retrocausality).  It is also always up for review.

In other words, interprect the data how you want, but more data points are always good.

[klickitat jim]

The analogy is getting confused. Isn't gravity a fact? What causes it or effects it may or may not be nailed down perfectly, but things with mass that get close enough to earth do fall prey to gravity. Not believing in gravity is what we call delusional. To draw it back on track, a hypothesis might be something like "i beleive the moon will fall to earth in 2 billion years". Then you gather fatcs like gravity, speed of the moon's orbit, measured decay of orbit, etc until you can change it from hypothesis to theory. Then its the job of other scientists to defeat the theory. If they cant... and the moon smashes into the earth, its a fact.

In this thread, before we wander entirely into the weeds, grain is a fact, ph is a fact, contact time is a fact, etc. If I like the beer better one way or another, or equally the same, that is truth. No matter how many people agree or disagree, its still truth. And that is why I am saying that the final end point of beer is not science, its a personal experience.

Take decoction for example, to beat that crippled horse. If science gathers facts indicating that 99.99% of people can not tell the difference, that one guy in a thousand who can tell a difference... to him, it makes a difference.  If you were considering cost as a commercial brewer, id certainty consider that my profits wont suffer by losing that one customer. But we are mostly homebrewers. Who cares. Do it Gordons way. Or dont. Do a blind triangle. Or dont. Your beer matters only to you.

[dbeechum]

That's insulting.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be insulting, I was trying to offer my view on how process geeks like Denny think.

I find the experiments and what not being done fascinating from a perspective of trying to build up a better base of "knowledge" than what we've had in the tales and practices handed down. The experiments make the "wisdom" more trustworthy than "do it this way because that's what some dork in LA does".

Does it mean I don't brew for myself? Nah, that's way too Teutonic for me. Brew to make yourself happy, it's what I do. Seriously, Saturday I'm brewing some Saison strain experiments and my first attempt at a fluffernutter beer. One half experiment, one half "experiment"

[charles1968]

Im not certain, but in a way science does understand the difference. One beleives something to be true... hypothesis. Then goes about proving it to be a sort of fact called a theory. Its kind of similar, seems like anyway. I find ot interesting that when science has irrefutable evidence they still call it a theory. It seems science leaves room for doubt, though in our daily jargon we refer to things as "scientific" as though that leaves no room for doubt.

You're very nearly right but using the words in the wrong way. Scientists never set out to prove something. Lawyers like the word proof and claim to prove guilt/innocence, but science doesn't work that way and never claims to have established certain truth. A hypothesis isn't the truth, it's a guess at what the truth might be. Experiments try to knock it down (scientists have no respect for authority, at least in theory). If it stands up, your confidence in it increases. It's it stands up after hundreds/thousands of tests, like a bridge that thousands of people have crossed, you consider it safe. But you can never actually prove it's safe and the truth is never fully established. Likewise there's no irrefutable proof that Earth orbits the Sun, that atoms exist, that gravity works on undiscovered planets, and so on, but we can be sufficiently confident about those claims to call them facts.

Back to the exbeeriments - they provide evidence that anecdotal claims made by homebrewers are likely to be, putting it politely, mistaken. The mash capping exbeeriment doesn't prove that capping the mash is a waste of time, but it certainly suggests it. If you presented the evidence to a jury and they decided capping the mash doesn't work as claimed, that might amount to legal proof would it wouldn't amount to scientific proof.

As has been pointed out lots of times, homebrewers are prone to bias. Huge amounts of it. How many times have you read that using a brew fridge/treating water/boiling 90 minutes/crash cooling/fill in blank has taken someone's beer "to the next level". The only way to test to those claims is with empirical evidence and blind tasting tests are probably the best way to do that, flawed though they might be. Subjective opinion may work a lot of the time, but it's not robust enough to back up the kinds of claims brewers keep making online.

[Phil_M]

You're very nearly right but using the words in the wrong way. Scientists never set out to prove something. Lawyers like the word proof and claim to prove guilt/innocence, but science doesn't work that way and never claims to have established certain truth. A hypothesis isn't the truth, it's a guess at what the truth might be. Experiments try to knock it down (scientists have no respect for authority, at least in theory). If it stands up, your confidence in it increases. It's it stands up after hundreds/thousands of tests, like a bridge that thousands of people have crossed, you consider it safe. But you can never actually prove it's safe and the truth is never fully established. Likewise there's no irrefutable proof that Earth orbits the Sun, that atoms exist, that gravity works on undiscovered planets, and so on, but we can be sufficiently confident about those claims to call them facts.

Perhaps I put too much faith in engineering models and testing, but I do consider a bridge like you describe to be proven safe. Take a 747 in flight and scrub it of all airspeed-it's a true statement that it will fall like a brick, at least till it builds up enough airspeed to fly again. While the models and methods of science and engineering may not be perfectly true, definitive, quantifiable test results are. If they weren't, I wouldn't have a job...

[charles1968]

Perhaps I put too much faith in engineering models and testing, but I do consider a bridge like you describe to be proven safe. Take a 747 in flight and scrub it of all airspeed-it's a true statement that it will fall like a brick, at least till it builds up enough airspeed to fly again. While the models and methods of science and engineering may not be perfectly true, definitive, quantifiable test results are. If they weren't, I wouldn't have a job...

Tahoma Narrows? Absolute proof isn't possible by inductive reasoning - you can never say a bridge is 100% safe. Philosophers call this the "problem of induction". But for practical purposes you don't need absolute proof, just sufficient confidence. Most scientific research happens on the fringe of knowledge, where there are widely varying degrees of certainty. Engineering is applied science based on laws of physics that have stood the test to time and now considered fact, so engineers tend to be more certain about things than scientists.

[brulosopher]

There are other problems with the triangle thing as well.  Something as simple as pour order can have an effect.  Besides which statistical significance may rely taking into account the range human sensual detection when factoring for your P-value.

Just as an anecdote...

I don't know of a data collection or statistical method that has no flaws, and I'm certain dudes like Denny, Drew, and the Brülosophy crew have never claimed the triangle test to be perfect. But it's the best we've got and what I'll continue to use until something better comes along.

And it's certainly better than anecdote.

With all due respect, using something like pour order to minimize the results seems a touch desperate, to me.

We're all coming from different perspectives with different goals. The mantra of "The best beer possible with the least effort possible while having the most fun possible" (TBBPWTLEPWHTMFP) and those who preach it is just fine, but it's just another way of saying "Brew beer that's 90% as good as it could be with only 40% of the effort." I think 90% is more than good enough for most homebrewers, and let's be honest - it's better than what a lot of craft breweries make nowadays.

Some of us are trying to get as close to Augustiner, Westvleteren, New Glarus, Russian River, Hill Farmstead, take your pick - as we possibly can. I'm in this camp.

I want to be clear that I truly don't think there is anything at all wrong with following TBBPWTLEPWHTMFP. We all have work, family, and other obligations and it's unreasonable and wrong for everybody in the hobby to be expected to brew like the best pros in the world. A lot of people have a lot of fun brewing darn good beer at home simply, cheaply, and easily, and I really think that's great.

That said, for beer brewed on my own system, Following some of the advice en vogue on the internet has taken me further away from where I'm trying to go. Following advice found in the German brewing textbooks has gotten me closer. The problem is that trying to get to 100% involves making your process more complex, and that can be confusing to newbies and alienating to people who aren't going for 100%. I think that this is one of the major reasons why the guys who advocate TBBPWTLEPWHTMFP preach what they do. They want an inclusive communal environment, and that's respectable. I believe that this is good for the community as a whole! My one and only problem with this is that when the TBBPWTLEPWHTMFP is the zeitgeist, it becomes taboo to talk about what it takes to reach 100%, and sometimes it's even taboo to suggest that this ideal even exists. See the recent helles threads.

Your opinion that simpler brewing will only get one's beer to 90% seems a bit presumptuous. I'd contend many of the non-simple practices people engage are unnecessary remnants of our less informed past. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm okay with that, but I've had very simply made beer that was more than 90%.

Your personal dedication to replicating beers that already exist is respectable, as is the way you approach doing it. Who cares what the zeitgeist is, it doesn't impact your brewing unless you allow it to. Though again, your version of 100% is completely subjective and the opinion that one can't reach that elusive point using simpler methods comes across slightly self-righteous. Imagine if someone like me said something like, "You can't make the best beer unless you do what I do!" Oh, the s***storm!

Cheers!

This is absolutely, positively huge. When I give myself blind taste tests between different batches I've made, I need to completely cleanse my palette with water and crackers or popcorn or something between sips. The flavor of a beer lingers long after I swallow it.

To be clear, they aren't blind taste tests if you're giving them to yourself and you're aware of the independent variable/s.

Clear as mud.

Denny/Drew:  Let's cut the crap.  I don't pretend to be an authoritative expert on anything.  Read through my comments again.  I'm merely saying that I made a change, and as a result my beers improved, that they went from point A to point B.  I stand by that.  That doesn't mean I'm finished trying to improve them, or that I'm finished exploring new ideas, or finished seeking the wisdom of true experts such as yourselves.  I work hard to improve my brewing.  When I believe I have accomplished that in some way, notwithstanding an absence of rigorous testing, it does not mean that I'm acting like an authoritative expert without due diligence.  That's insulting.

I don't think they're referring directly to you, but the general propensity to rely on what someone in authority says despite a significant lack of evidence, and the subsequent defensiveness when the adopted methods get called into question.

You can swear your beer has improved because of changes you made, and if to you it has, that's great! But it's subjective and based on your own anecdotal experience, which isn't an issue at all...

Until you start trying to convince others that the changes you made will improve their beer. It's this use of anecdote as fact that dudes like me are interested in moving away from. I've made it my hobby, in fact.

Getting insulted over this crap suggests perhaps a bit too much emotional investment.

[klickitat jim]

Much well said Marshall. By the way, I tried your quick ferment method with my last pair of lagers. Grain to keg in two weeks including crashing and gell fining. Worked awesome... for me. And I'll sleep just fine at night whether anyone else adopts the method or not.

But thanks for sharing that because it sure helped improve my beer

[HoosierBrew]

Much well said Marshall. By the way, I tried your quick ferment method with my last pair of lagers. Grain to keg in two weeks including crashing and gell fining. Worked awesome... for me. And I'll sleep just fine at night whether anyone else adopts the method or not.

But thanks for sharing that because it sure helped improve my beer

Same here. I read about Tasty McDole doing it and tried it, and before long Marshall was posting about it. Just works great.