Since this is allied with this subject, I'm carrying on here.
I do find that untrained palates are often less likely to discern differences in beer flavor and character. When tasting panels are convened in commercial settings, they are often trained and graded for sensitivity in a number of sensory areas. I'm concerned that the use of 'regular' untrained tasters that have no guidance as to what differences they should be looking for or an ability to recognize them, leaves this testing result with an overly skewed result of...can't tell a difference. Its not until you have a 'clubbed over the head' difference in beers that a viable result can be noted. I feel that's not good for science and not good for brewing improvement.
While I applaud the explorations that Brulosophy conducts, the results point out the mediocrity of an untrained palate that has no idea of what it might need to note as a difference. Since most of these tests compare nuanced differences, it is probably also appropriate to include more focused assessments and comparisons using trained palates to help discern if there are differences. I like that the authors of these various exbeeriments often try to explore differences in their beers with their full knowledge of their brewing differences, but I'd like to see more trained palates included in that assessment. Triangle testing does help reduce randomness in the assessments, but I would like to know that there has been an opportunity for the taster to focus on what the potential difference or flaw is and if its really perceptible.
Since these beers are often decent, similar beers, I'm not surprised that the tasters can't perceive a difference between them. But I don't want to automatically apply a finding of 'makes no statistical difference' to an experimental trial with that measurement alone. Remember, the majority of beer drinkers think that Budmilloors is great beer.