[narvin]

Regarding "best practices", I agree a bit, but with the caveat that it is a slippery slope. We all have different goals with this hobby. I'm fine with "procedure A gets me result B", but I'm less cool with "everybody really needs to follow this procedure because it is proven to make better beer". "Result B" can certainly be "the freshest-tasting malt character I've ever experienced" or something else fantastic, but I'll make the decision regarding what a "better beer" really is for me, thank you very much.

That's definitely true.  Even in business, a best practice (in my opinion) really just means "this works, usually".  It's not the only way to do something, nor will it necessarily stand the test of time, but it's often good advice to try.

[reverseapachemaster]

I like your car forum analogy. For my purposes, I like to hear what everyone else is doing and what results they're getting. If it's something I'm interested for my own purposes, then I may decide to try to roll that into my practice.

Regarding "best practices", I agree a bit, but with the caveat that it is a slippery slope. We all have different goals with this hobby. I'm fine with "procedure A gets me result B", but I'm less cool with "everybody really needs to follow this procedure because it is proven to make better beer". "Result B" can certainly be "the freshest-tasting malt character I've ever experienced" or something else fantastic, but I'll make the decision regarding what a "better beer" really is for me, thank you very much.

Agreed. The science behind brewing is objective but the outcome of brewing is completely subjective. You can time a car's speed and objectively determine if something made the car faster. There's nothing subjective about it. You can objectively measure the amount of hop oils in a beer or carbonation levels. That's not subjective; but you don't taste objective measurements. Whether the amount of hop oils or carbonation produces a beer you want to drink is 100% subjective.

[Phil_M]

Regarding "best practices", I agree a bit, but with the caveat that it is a slippery slope. We all have different goals with this hobby. I'm fine with "procedure A gets me result B", but I'm less cool with "everybody really needs to follow this procedure because it is proven to make better beer". "Result B" can certainly be "the freshest-tasting malt character I've ever experienced" or something else fantastic, but I'll make the decision regarding what a "better beer" really is for me, thank you very much.

That's definitely true.  Even in business, a best practice (in my opinion) really just means "this works, usually".  It's not the only way to do something, nor will it necessarily stand the test of time, but it's often good advice to try.

Ah, but best practices doesn't directly make for best product. Sometimes in my workplace a reliable "best practice" must be discarded to get the most out of the system.

IOW, it may be good advice on operating the system "in general", but it is a piss-poor excuse to not know and understand the principles behind the system operation.

"Best practice" is to swap out the dead card. Better practice is to understand the power supply of the old card died because too many peripherals were attached, rectify that issue, and then swap out the card.

Agreed. The science behind brewing is objective but the outcome of brewing is completely subjective. You can time a car's speed and objectively determine if something made the car faster. There's nothing subjective about it. You can objectively measure the amount of hop oils in a beer or carbonation levels. That's not subjective; but you don't taste objective measurements. Whether the amount of hop oils or carbonation produces a beer you want to drink is 100% subjective.

Actually, it's the same. Goals are subjective, "I want a car that's mild mannered on the street, but still runs 11's." There are several ways to achieve that goal, and the best route is a manner for much debate. The information from runs/skidpads/other means of quantifying data help get you to that goal, but in and of themselves don't define the goal.

Just as DO, hop oils, proteins etc. aren't a measure of how drinkable a beer is.

I think the issue is a matter of perspective, two different approaches to the same basic issue, but only one perspective is getting the short end of the stick around here of late...

[homoeccentricus]

 He says "I use method x and my beer is good so method x is good"
I don't say anything.

[reverseapachemaster]

Actually, it's the same. Goals are subjective, "I want a car that's mild mannered on the street, but still runs 11's." There are several ways to achieve that goal, and the best route is a manner for much debate. The information from runs/skidpads/other means of quantifying data help get you to that goal, but in and of themselves don't define the goal.

Just as DO, hop oils, proteins etc. aren't a measure of how drinkable a beer is.

I see your point and perhaps I should refine mine. Within a subjective goal, like your car example, you can point out factors that meet the goal and objectively test them. We could take that same objective test data and disagree whether it produces a car that is mild mannered for our preferences but the objective test data equally applies to both of us. We have a shared set of meaningful data we can agree upon, even if we use it to draw different conclusions.

OTOH, if you wanted to brew a hefeweizen with a big clove note and we obtained objective test data on the volume of 4VG that data has very little value because our individual sensory perception intervenes. You could taste a lot of clove while I taste very little. It doesn't matter what the tested volume says. We each have a subjective experience that the other person cannot validate or dispute. I guess somebody could say, "I want to brew a hefe with X amount of 4VG" but have you ever seen that? I can't say I have.

[JJeffers09]

I would like to propose, because I have not seen it mentioned, a Brewing Science Category.  A category people know exactly where to post and discuss brewing theory.  That way we as a community can contribute and learn.  Spreading the wealth of knowledge and experimental home brewing techniques.

Everyone should be able to shake off the shenanigans of the past.  Almost everyone at some point was to blame.  Given the right category to discuss the technical brewing science would have alleviated many of the ups and downs this forum has gone through.

The point in which we start to judge peoples methods of brewing is where we start to break down as a community and become a bunch of fussy individuals falling into one category or another.  The individuals who want to figure out how to make their beer better will seek out the information on advance brewing science if they know where to look. New products that come to market should be discussed in those threads.  Not the general black hole category.

I for one have had my ups and downs with this forum.  I miss some of the people who have left, or stopped contributing here.  However sharing the love of beer trends, homebrewing, and wanting to go pro that is finally getting close to reality. I just want to regurgitate some of the best information I had received that took my homebrew to the next level.  That is what this forum is about to me, and that's what keeps me coming back.

[tommymorris]

I don't know if it will stick, but, the forum has been pretty civil for the lasts couple of weeks.

[erockrph]

He says "I use method x and my beer is good so method x is good"
I don't say anything.

And neither of those stances are particularly helpful to me, or to most brewers for that matter. But "I'm using method X and I've noticed ABC versus when I was using method Y" is a conversation I'd love to tune into.

[homoeccentricus]

In my experience most homebrewers wouldn't know what good is if it hit them in the face. Not referring to the type of person that frequents this forum. (I hope).  Beer is good because the neighbor gets it for free, and he says it's pretty good.

[hopfenundmalz]

I like your car forum analogy. For my purposes, I like to hear what everyone else is doing and what results they're getting. If it's something I'm interested for my own purposes, then I may decide to try to roll that into my practice.

Regarding "best practices", I agree a bit, but with the caveat that it is a slippery slope. We all have different goals with this hobby. I'm fine with "procedure A gets me result B", but I'm less cool with "everybody really needs to follow this procedure because it is proven to make better beer". "Result B" can certainly be "the freshest-tasting malt character I've ever experienced" or something else fantastic, but I'll make the decision regarding what a "better beer" really is for me, thank you very much.

Agreed. The science behind brewing is objective but the outcome of brewing is completely subjective. You can time a car's speed and objectively determine if something made the car faster. There's nothing subjective about it. You can objectively measure the amount of hop oils in a beer or carbonation levels. That's not subjective; but you don't taste objective measurements. Whether the amount of hop oils or carbonation produces a beer you want to drink is 100% subjective.

A crew chief told me don't trust the driver, trust the stop watch. He proceeded to tell of the driver complaining on the radio that the car was a POS during the qualifying run. At the end of the run the crew chief keyed the mike and said "you are on Pole".

So there you go the driver thought the car was a slug. The time said otherwise.

I may like a beer, and something else is off but due to my subjective perceptions (medium high Diacetyl threshold for example) it doesn't bother me.