[klickitat jim]

Cool

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[bboy9000]

I am beginning to remember why I walked away from this forum.

Jim, this is healthy discussion about science which is the topic of the forum.  That's all.  The topic of the thread is about science.  These kinds of debate happen I the scientific field.  Note that I included myself as those affected by bias.  I didn't mean anything personal.  I don't have a preference for LODO or non-LODO.  I was skeptical of it at first and questioned Bryan and others frequently.  After Google searching it's obvious HSA is a valid concern.  The only question left is whether it is worthwhile on the homebrew side.

[bboy9000]

I am beginning to remember why I walked away from this forum.

I took a brewing hiatus then so I missed that.  Sounds like Mark was treated like the LODO guys.

[klickitat jim]

Suppose Marshall puts LODO to the test. He only follows a few of the LODO techniques and finds no significant difference.

Response- hey dummy, you missed X Y and Z. Valid argument.

Response- oh ya? Well, you have advertising and sell t-shirts. Invalid argument that doesn't really make the thing look all that good.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[bboy9000]

Suppose Marshall puts LODO to the test. He only follows a few of the LODO techniques and finds no significant difference.

Response- hey dummy, you missed X Y and Z. Valid argument.

Response- oh ya? Well, you have advertising and sell t-shirts. Invalid argument that doesn't really make the thing look all that good.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

I agree but Marshall was the one that mentioned a vested interest.  Granted Big Monk baited him. I was pointing out that Marshall could easily be accused of the same thing.  I like his experiments but if one accused him of bias because of it that's a fair point.

[klickitat jim]

I've got no problem with that. Marshall is a big boy and can take it. I'm just saying... look, for all I know LODO is the only way to brew and all beer is crap without it. But when you are claiming scientific data as the foundation for LODO, you really don't help yourself out by getting in the weeds of non scientific stuff.

Royal you. I don't mean YOU

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[homoeccentricus]

Lodo has all the characteristics of a paradigm shift (cf philosophy of science, Popper and Kuhn). Radical changes, lots of resistance, argumentation not always completely rational. Obviously, paradigm shifts are not always for the better (cf dinosaurs and biblical flood).

[dilluh98]

Yup. It smells an awful lot like Mark and the SNS method. To that end, few people are arguing against that methodology as valid these days. There was massive resistance to the idea initially though. And what was it really? A "hack" using a gallon glass jug. The LoDO "hack" feels oddly similar in the way these discussions are playing out.

[brulosopher]

Suppose Marshall puts LODO to the test. He only follows a few of the LODO techniques and finds no significant difference.

Response- hey dummy, you missed X Y and Z. Valid argument.

Response- oh ya? Well, you have advertising and sell t-shirts. Invalid argument that doesn't really make the thing look all that good.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Out of respect for the LoDO folks, both factions, I won't be performing the LoDO xBmt, at least to start. In fact, I'm working with a friend on it now, a dude who is not affiliated with Brülosophy and hence not as vested as greedy ol' me... he also happens to be respected by the LoDO community. And our aim is to do it as "by the book" as humanly possible.

If the beers end up being indistinguishable, I guarantee you won't see me delve into the realm of the immature by immediately saying it is myth. Similarly, if the results are significant, I won't jump to the immediate conclusion that it is the holy grail. We will continue to explore, designing "citizen science" experiments to test the claims, despite cries that we did it wrong or had some ulterior motive.

Good grief!

Marshall sells t-shirts. He's a vested interest LODO denier. Call the brewing justice warriors.

I am beginning to remember why I walked away from this forum.

I do sell t-shirts. As a psychologist, I've spent a lot of time not only studying bias, but analyzing my own. Indeed, it does influence me, though I'm not convinced it has any impact whatsoever on the way we approach data collection-- I seriously don't care what we find, it's all interesting to me, I'm not "vested" in any variables being right or wrong.

That simply isn't the case with the lowoxygenbrewing.com crew. We (humans) don't promote specific ideas without some motive, and while the motive for the LoDO folks may not be money, it's certainly something. Clout and recognition have been shown to be just as strong of motivators as money, perhaps that's the goal. And that's totally fine!

Suppose Marshall puts LODO to the test. He only follows a few of the LODO techniques and finds no significant difference.

Response- hey dummy, you missed X Y and Z. Valid argument.

Response- oh ya? Well, you have advertising and sell t-shirts. Invalid argument that doesn't really make the thing look all that good.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

I agree but Marshall was the one that mentioned a vested interest.  Granted Big Monk baited him. I was pointing out that Marshall could easily be accused of the same thing.  I like his experiments but if one accused him of bias because of it that's a fair point.

You're presuming by vested I was referring only to money... I wasn't at all.

Being accused of biased is like being accused of breathing air-- it's ubiquitous and inescapable. The issue becomes accusations regarding the source of said bias and using those accusations to bolster one's own view of themselves as less biased.

Brülosophy isn't promoting any specific method as right or wrong. All of us contributors have had our beliefs questioned by the results, it's weird to be sure, but that's what happens. We don't change the way we do things to achieve a specific result, also know as p-hacking, and Google searches do not suffice for us.

The LoDO folks, specifically those from lowoxygenbrewing.com, seem dedicated to a cause, that of promoting a specific method as being the "best" way. Rather than providing actual relevant evidence, they've deferred to 70+ year old papers (appeal to antiquity) and anecdotal experiences (try it for yourself). This is all cool, doesn't bother me one bit, I'm not even a LoDO denier. It's odd to me that my interest in seeing relevant data has led to sh!t throwing I haven't experienced since middle school. So it goes.

Lodo has all the characteristics of a paradigm shift (cf philosophy of science, Popper and Kuhn). Radical changes, lots of resistance, argumentation not always completely rational. Obviously, paradigm shifts are not always for the better (cf dinosaurs and biblical flood).

Yep.

[braufessor]

Marshall has a vested interst in what he does...... however, it seems misplaced to think that the vested interest has anything to do with whether or not LODO is "a thing."

If anything, the vested interest of Brulosophy is to do a good job of objectively evaluating as many brewing practices as possible - ranging from old wives tales, to conventional wisdom, to new practices.  I think the NE IPA stuff is a good example of that.  I think his initial "bias" toward NE IPA's was that of many - they were a gimmick, sloppy, poorly done, etc.  However, he did a variety of trials that centered around them and kind of came back with the realization that "hey, you know what, these beers are actually pretty good" within the context of the issues he was exploring.

Honestly, if Brulosophy had some sort of agenda they would probably figure out a way for more of their experiments to actually show conclusive differences in their outcomes.  I love all of the experiments, tests, comparisons - but, let's be honest - at this point the default assumption is basically "no one could tell the difference."  If he was honestly biased in a way to promote himself and what he does - he would would be hedging toward more concrete results.

Like I said - the "bias" that is financially in the best interest of Brulosophy is ultimately: "Be open minded, listen to what is currently interesting to home brewers, and design experiments as best he can to compare practices to see what does, and does not make a difference."   He has nothing at all to gain by having an "agenda" of any sort.  In fact, that would be the one position that would be least beneficial to his financial interest.

** This from a guy who did my first two batches of LODO lagers yesterday and was surprised at some rather distinct differences in the wort I produced.  (whether that translates into anything in the finished beer is yet to be seen).

[Big Monk]

Suppose Marshall puts LODO to the test. He only follows a few of the LODO techniques and finds no significant difference.

Response- hey dummy, you missed X Y and Z. Valid argument.

Response- oh ya? Well, you have advertising and sell t-shirts. Invalid argument that doesn't really make the thing look all that good.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Out of respect for the LoDO folks, both factions, I won't be performing the LoDO xBmt, at least to start. In fact, I'm working with a friend on it now, a dude who is not affiliated with Brülosophy and hence not as vested as greedy ol' me... he also happens to be respected by the LoDO community. And our aim is to do it as "by the book" as humanly possible.

If the beers end up being indistinguishable, I guarantee you won't see me delve into the realm of the immature by immediately saying it is myth. Similarly, if the results are significant, I won't jump to the immediate conclusion that it is the holy grail. We will continue to explore, designing "citizen science" experiments to test the claims, despite cries that we did it wrong or had some ulterior motive.

Good grief!

Marshall sells t-shirts. He's a vested interest LODO denier. Call the brewing justice warriors.

I am beginning to remember why I walked away from this forum.

I do sell t-shirts. As a psychologist, I've spent a lot of time not only studying bias, but analyzing my own. Indeed, it does influence me, though I'm not convinced it has any impact whatsoever on the way we approach data collection-- I seriously don't care what we find, it's all interesting to me, I'm not "vested" in any variables being right or wrong.

That simply isn't the case with the lowoxygenbrewing.com crew. We (humans) don't promote specific ideas without some motive, and while the motive for the LoDO folks may not be money, it's certainly something. Clout and recognition have been shown to be just as strong of motivators as money, perhaps that's the goal. And that's totally fine!

Suppose Marshall puts LODO to the test. He only follows a few of the LODO techniques and finds no significant difference.

Response- hey dummy, you missed X Y and Z. Valid argument.

Response- oh ya? Well, you have advertising and sell t-shirts. Invalid argument that doesn't really make the thing look all that good.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

I agree but Marshall was the one that mentioned a vested interest.  Granted Big Monk baited him. I was pointing out that Marshall could easily be accused of the same thing.  I like his experiments but if one accused him of bias because of it that's a fair point.

You're presuming by vested I was referring only to money... I wasn't at all.

Being accused of biased is like being accused of breathing air-- it's ubiquitous and inescapable. The issue becomes accusations regarding the source of said bias and using those accusations to bolster one's own view of themselves as less biased.

Brülosophy isn't promoting any specific method as right or wrong. All of us contributors have had our beliefs questioned by the results, it's weird to be sure, but that's what happens. We don't change the way we do things to achieve a specific result, also know as p-hacking, and Google searches do not suffice for us.

The LoDO folks, specifically those from lowoxygenbrewing.com, seem dedicated to a cause, that of promoting a specific method as being the "best" way. Rather than providing actual relevant evidence, they've deferred to 70+ year old papers (appeal to antiquity) and anecdotal experiences (try it for yourself). This is all cool, doesn't bother me one bit, I'm not even a LoDO denier. It's odd to me that my interest in seeing relevant data has led to sh!t throwing I haven't experienced since middle school. So it goes.

Lodo has all the characteristics of a paradigm shift (cf philosophy of science, Popper and Kuhn). Radical changes, lots of resistance, argumentation not always completely rational. Obviously, paradigm shifts are not always for the better (cf dinosaurs and biblical flood).

Yep.

The 5th edition of Kunze was released in 2014, not a piece of antiquity by a long shot. I was merely referring to the fact that even Jean DeClerck references the damaging effects of oxygen in his seminal "A textbook of brewing" which dates to the late 40s.

Browse the references we list and you'll find most of the important information is dated to the past 30 years. This is current information. It's also relevant. It's also not the stuff of antiquity.

I can only speak for myself: other than my first name and what beers I like, no one on this forum knows who I am. Not my face, where I live. I don't get backslaps and attaboys, I'm not an AHA member so I don't go to conferences, I'm not a part of a homebrew club and I don't enter competitions.

There is zero benefit for me to push this information. Absolutely none. Even if there was recognition it's not the kind that affects my life. It doesn't affect me as a dad, or a professional or a husband.

As much as I enjoy conversing with everyone here, their opinion about me is irrelevant to my real life and even my online presence.

The website could go away today, with all the information and the only people it would be hurting would be the forum members here we created it for.

[The Beerery]

I don't have much to add, since this is basically a s-show already.

I just want to point out that low oxygen brewing IS the best way to brew. It IS currently being taught, to all brewing professionals. ALL of the major equipment manufacturers are making low oxygen brew houses. It IS backed by nearly 100 years of REAL scientists in REAL trials and tests. IF you doubt me(which isn't even me in this case,its brewing professionals around the world), I urge you to get the literature, and attend the courses and tell them they are wrong, because there was an exbeeriment that said so.. I would love to see where that gets you.

Now, I saw NE ipa's brought up.. You do realize they are rocking low oxygen brewhouses and are fanatical about DO right? In hill farmsteads video you can CLEARLY see a copy of Kunze(The Holy brewing Bible) on dudes table, and they are rocking a German brewhouse. Also in the video you can see him venting pressure on his spunded beers in the fermenter.

Now, brewing low oxygen IS the best method to make beers, and its not debatable, well I mean you can debate, but you will be debating folks that you will lose to(obviously not me). Which has been my point the entirety. I will refer back to above when I say, it IS being taught, if you don't believe me get one of the brewing books, or take a class. I know this because I have done BOTH of those things.

However, the real argument should be, can I notice a difference in my brewing VS low oxygen brewing? Not the brewing method itself.

I can't fault you folks who have not tasted low oxygen wort, but if you have tasted a proper low oxygen wort, the difference is so dramatic that its not even close. Right now its like trying to describe a flower to a blind person. So until the time comes when folks can get a taste, there is no point even trying to elaborate on it.

[brulosopher]

Marshall has a vested interst in what he does...... however, it seems misplaced to think that the vested interest has anything to do with whether or not LODO is "a thing."

If anything, the vested interest of Brulosophy is to do a good job of objectively evaluating as many brewing practices as possible - ranging from old wives tales, to conventional wisdom, to new practices.  I think the NE IPA stuff is a good example of that.  I think his initial "bias" toward NE IPA's was that of many - they were a gimmick, sloppy, poorly done, etc.  However, he did a variety of trials that centered around them and kind of came back with the realization that "hey, you know what, these beers are actually pretty good" within the context of the issues he was exploring.

Honestly, if Brulosophy had some sort of agenda they would probably figure out a way for more of their experiments to actually show conclusive differences in their outcomes.  I love all of the experiments, tests, comparisons - but, let's be honest - at this point the default assumption is basically "no one could tell the difference."  If he was honestly biased in a way to promote himself and what he does - he would would be hedging toward more concrete results.

Like I said - the "bias" that is financially in the best interest of Brulosophy is ultimately: "Be open minded, listen to what is currently interesting to home brewers, and design experiments as best he can to compare practices to see what does, and does not make a difference."   He has nothing at all to gain by having an "agenda" of any sort.  In fact, that would be the one position that would be least beneficial to his financial interest.

** This from a guy who did my first two batches of LODO lagers yesterday and was surprised at some rather distinct differences in the wort I produced.  (whether that translates into anything in the finished beer is yet to be seen).

Just kegged 20 more gallons of that deliciously ugly stuff last night

Suppose Marshall puts LODO to the test. He only follows a few of the LODO techniques and finds no significant difference.

Response- hey dummy, you missed X Y and Z. Valid argument.

Response- oh ya? Well, you have advertising and sell t-shirts. Invalid argument that doesn't really make the thing look all that good.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Out of respect for the LoDO folks, both factions, I won't be performing the LoDO xBmt, at least to start. In fact, I'm working with a friend on it now, a dude who is not affiliated with Brülosophy and hence not as vested as greedy ol' me... he also happens to be respected by the LoDO community. And our aim is to do it as "by the book" as humanly possible.

If the beers end up being indistinguishable, I guarantee you won't see me delve into the realm of the immature by immediately saying it is myth. Similarly, if the results are significant, I won't jump to the immediate conclusion that it is the holy grail. We will continue to explore, designing "citizen science" experiments to test the claims, despite cries that we did it wrong or had some ulterior motive.

Good grief!

Marshall sells t-shirts. He's a vested interest LODO denier. Call the brewing justice warriors.

I am beginning to remember why I walked away from this forum.

I do sell t-shirts. As a psychologist, I've spent a lot of time not only studying bias, but analyzing my own. Indeed, it does influence me, though I'm not convinced it has any impact whatsoever on the way we approach data collection-- I seriously don't care what we find, it's all interesting to me, I'm not "vested" in any variables being right or wrong.

That simply isn't the case with the lowoxygenbrewing.com crew. We (humans) don't promote specific ideas without some motive, and while the motive for the LoDO folks may not be money, it's certainly something. Clout and recognition have been shown to be just as strong of motivators as money, perhaps that's the goal. And that's totally fine!

Suppose Marshall puts LODO to the test. He only follows a few of the LODO techniques and finds no significant difference.

Response- hey dummy, you missed X Y and Z. Valid argument.

Response- oh ya? Well, you have advertising and sell t-shirts. Invalid argument that doesn't really make the thing look all that good.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

I agree but Marshall was the one that mentioned a vested interest.  Granted Big Monk baited him. I was pointing out that Marshall could easily be accused of the same thing.  I like his experiments but if one accused him of bias because of it that's a fair point.

You're presuming by vested I was referring only to money... I wasn't at all.

Being accused of biased is like being accused of breathing air-- it's ubiquitous and inescapable. The issue becomes accusations regarding the source of said bias and using those accusations to bolster one's own view of themselves as less biased.

Brülosophy isn't promoting any specific method as right or wrong. All of us contributors have had our beliefs questioned by the results, it's weird to be sure, but that's what happens. We don't change the way we do things to achieve a specific result, also know as p-hacking, and Google searches do not suffice for us.

The LoDO folks, specifically those from lowoxygenbrewing.com, seem dedicated to a cause, that of promoting a specific method as being the "best" way. Rather than providing actual relevant evidence, they've deferred to 70+ year old papers (appeal to antiquity) and anecdotal experiences (try it for yourself). This is all cool, doesn't bother me one bit, I'm not even a LoDO denier. It's odd to me that my interest in seeing relevant data has led to sh!t throwing I haven't experienced since middle school. So it goes.

Lodo has all the characteristics of a paradigm shift (cf philosophy of science, Popper and Kuhn). Radical changes, lots of resistance, argumentation not always completely rational. Obviously, paradigm shifts are not always for the better (cf dinosaurs and biblical flood).

Yep.

The 5th edition of Kunze was released in 2014, not a piece of antiquity by a long shot. I was merely referring to the fact that even Jean DeClerck references the damaging effects of oxygen in his seminal "A textbook of brewing" which dates to the late 40s.

Browse the references we list and you'll find most of the important information is dated to the past 30 years. This is current information. It's also relevant. It's also not the stuff of antiquity.

I can only speak for myself: other than my first name and what beers I like, no one on this forum knows who I am. Not my face, where I live. I don't get backslaps and attaboys, I'm not an AHA member so I don't go to conferences, I'm not a part of a homebrew club and I don't enter competitions.

There is zero benefit for me to push this information. Absolutely none. Even if there was recognition it's not the kind that affects my life. It doesn't affect me as a dad, or a professional or a husband.

As much as I enjoy conversing with everyone here, their opinion about me is irrelevant to my real life and even my online presence.

The website could go away today, with all the information and the only people it would be hurting would be the forum members here we created it for.

I have nothing against you at all, Derek, and appreciate your passion and commitment!

People know my name and some even know my face, but I'm not sure I get many attaboys. I am a proud AHA member who loves conferences because this community is amazing. I've been brewing since January 2003, experimenting extensively for the last 5 years or so, and I only recently came to accept there are few absolutes when it comes to methods. I'm a club member and have competed many times. I'm also a Certified BJCP judge.

If all of this makes me more biased, it's lost on me.

[Big Monk]

Marshall has a vested interst in what he does...... however, it seems misplaced to think that the vested interest has anything to do with whether or not LODO is "a thing."

If anything, the vested interest of Brulosophy is to do a good job of objectively evaluating as many brewing practices as possible - ranging from old wives tales, to conventional wisdom, to new practices.  I think the NE IPA stuff is a good example of that.  I think his initial "bias" toward NE IPA's was that of many - they were a gimmick, sloppy, poorly done, etc.  However, he did a variety of trials that centered around them and kind of came back with the realization that "hey, you know what, these beers are actually pretty good" within the context of the issues he was exploring.

Honestly, if Brulosophy had some sort of agenda they would probably figure out a way for more of their experiments to actually show conclusive differences in their outcomes.  I love all of the experiments, tests, comparisons - but, let's be honest - at this point the default assumption is basically "no one could tell the difference."  If he was honestly biased in a way to promote himself and what he does - he would would be hedging toward more concrete results.

Like I said - the "bias" that is financially in the best interest of Brulosophy is ultimately: "Be open minded, listen to what is currently interesting to home brewers, and design experiments as best he can to compare practices to see what does, and does not make a difference."   He has nothing at all to gain by having an "agenda" of any sort.  In fact, that would be the one position that would be least beneficial to his financial interest.

** This from a guy who did my first two batches of LODO lagers yesterday and was surprised at some rather distinct differences in the wort I produced.  (whether that translates into anything in the finished beer is yet to be seen).

Just kegged 20 more gallons of that deliciously ugly stuff last night

Suppose Marshall puts LODO to the test. He only follows a few of the LODO techniques and finds no significant difference.

Response- hey dummy, you missed X Y and Z. Valid argument.

Response- oh ya? Well, you have advertising and sell t-shirts. Invalid argument that doesn't really make the thing look all that good.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Out of respect for the LoDO folks, both factions, I won't be performing the LoDO xBmt, at least to start. In fact, I'm working with a friend on it now, a dude who is not affiliated with Brülosophy and hence not as vested as greedy ol' me... he also happens to be respected by the LoDO community. And our aim is to do it as "by the book" as humanly possible.

If the beers end up being indistinguishable, I guarantee you won't see me delve into the realm of the immature by immediately saying it is myth. Similarly, if the results are significant, I won't jump to the immediate conclusion that it is the holy grail. We will continue to explore, designing "citizen science" experiments to test the claims, despite cries that we did it wrong or had some ulterior motive.

Good grief!

Marshall sells t-shirts. He's a vested interest LODO denier. Call the brewing justice warriors.

I am beginning to remember why I walked away from this forum.

I do sell t-shirts. As a psychologist, I've spent a lot of time not only studying bias, but analyzing my own. Indeed, it does influence me, though I'm not convinced it has any impact whatsoever on the way we approach data collection-- I seriously don't care what we find, it's all interesting to me, I'm not "vested" in any variables being right or wrong.

That simply isn't the case with the lowoxygenbrewing.com crew. We (humans) don't promote specific ideas without some motive, and while the motive for the LoDO folks may not be money, it's certainly something. Clout and recognition have been shown to be just as strong of motivators as money, perhaps that's the goal. And that's totally fine!

Suppose Marshall puts LODO to the test. He only follows a few of the LODO techniques and finds no significant difference.

Response- hey dummy, you missed X Y and Z. Valid argument.

Response- oh ya? Well, you have advertising and sell t-shirts. Invalid argument that doesn't really make the thing look all that good.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

I agree but Marshall was the one that mentioned a vested interest.  Granted Big Monk baited him. I was pointing out that Marshall could easily be accused of the same thing.  I like his experiments but if one accused him of bias because of it that's a fair point.

You're presuming by vested I was referring only to money... I wasn't at all.

Being accused of biased is like being accused of breathing air-- it's ubiquitous and inescapable. The issue becomes accusations regarding the source of said bias and using those accusations to bolster one's own view of themselves as less biased.

Brülosophy isn't promoting any specific method as right or wrong. All of us contributors have had our beliefs questioned by the results, it's weird to be sure, but that's what happens. We don't change the way we do things to achieve a specific result, also know as p-hacking, and Google searches do not suffice for us.

The LoDO folks, specifically those from lowoxygenbrewing.com, seem dedicated to a cause, that of promoting a specific method as being the "best" way. Rather than providing actual relevant evidence, they've deferred to 70+ year old papers (appeal to antiquity) and anecdotal experiences (try it for yourself). This is all cool, doesn't bother me one bit, I'm not even a LoDO denier. It's odd to me that my interest in seeing relevant data has led to sh!t throwing I haven't experienced since middle school. So it goes.

Lodo has all the characteristics of a paradigm shift (cf philosophy of science, Popper and Kuhn). Radical changes, lots of resistance, argumentation not always completely rational. Obviously, paradigm shifts are not always for the better (cf dinosaurs and biblical flood).

Yep.

The 5th edition of Kunze was released in 2014, not a piece of antiquity by a long shot. I was merely referring to the fact that even Jean DeClerck references the damaging effects of oxygen in his seminal "A textbook of brewing" which dates to the late 40s.

Browse the references we list and you'll find most of the important information is dated to the past 30 years. This is current information. It's also relevant. It's also not the stuff of antiquity.

I can only speak for myself: other than my first name and what beers I like, no one on this forum knows who I am. Not my face, where I live. I don't get backslaps and attaboys, I'm not an AHA member so I don't go to conferences, I'm not a part of a homebrew club and I don't enter competitions.

There is zero benefit for me to push this information. Absolutely none. Even if there was recognition it's not the kind that affects my life. It doesn't affect me as a dad, or a professional or a husband.

As much as I enjoy conversing with everyone here, their opinion about me is irrelevant to my real life and even my online presence.

The website could go away today, with all the information and the only people it would be hurting would be the forum members here we created it for.

I have nothing against you at all, Derek, and appreciate your passion and commitment!

People know my name and some even know my face, but I'm not sure I get many attaboys. I am a proud AHA member who loves conferences because this community is amazing. I've been brewing since January 2003, experimenting extensively for the last 5 years or so, and I only recently came to accept there are few absolutes when it comes to methods. I'm a club member and have competed many times. I'm also a Certified BJCP judge.

If all of this makes me more biased, it's lost on me.

You missed the point, which wasn't to say you are more biased because of those things just that I have no conduit by which to receive clout/recognition/praise from other Brewers, hence that can't be my motivation for being interested in Low Oxygen.

[BrewBama]

...With all of that said, and hopefully not taken too far out of context... a ways back in read something that seemed to indicate that unless you are backing up your home brew results with accepted scientific data, you're not really an advanced brewer. If that's true, maybe I misinterpreted, but if that's true, I guess I am destined to be just a beginning home brewer because I do not personally find data research very fun.

I've never had anyone detect the science in my beers, but I suppose it's possible that's because I don't use very much.

Just my opinion

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

^^ We're in the same boat. I often clearly state my posts are my opinion with terms such as 'IMHO', 'I'm no expert', and 'I believe'. I also often cite my sources by respectable pillars of the brewing community. However... I am still wrong because the source does not agree with their position.

Many competitions, some judged by the highest authority in the styles, have been won by recipes described in books written by very decorated brewers using 'the wrong way'.
Even on this very site https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/how-to-brew/advanced/how-to-brew-beer/  BIAB and Batch Sparge are cited as "advanced brewing techniques."

Once again, IMHO, It's 'mind over matter'. I don't mind because they don't matter. You must brew THIS way or you are wrong is BS. 

I believe I'll lift a glass to science! Cheers!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk