Interesting topic.
I think it's great that PP is asking the question. Are we passing on information that we know to be true, or just what we have been told which may be wrong?
The answer you give will depend on where you are at, how experienced you think you are. This is my view as a fairly inexperienced brewer. There are two opposing poles, and a range of possibilities in between. Believe what you are told or read - or ditch everything and set about proving everything yourself.
Ideally, we would believe nothing, and set about proving it all ourselves. But this is a mountain of work, built up over thousands of years. The other end of the spectrum is just as impossible, because some of the information is so contradictory, that you cannot accept it all.
Somewhere in the middle then - pick your battles and prove or disproove certain aspects for yourself.
Unfortunatly, I am nowhere near a good enough brewer to be able to prove even the basic assumptions. I cannot get a consistent brew from one to the next. There are too many variables that I do not have sufficient control over yet. So maybe I should leave this debate to the more experienced brewers. But I'd even say that most brewers do not have the right equipment to get difinitive results
Which leaves me having to trust at least some of what I am told or read. Then, when my father in law says that he needs a heating pad to brew his beers when he lives in central queensland, do I correct him or not? In that case, I said that he may want to brew a bit cooler than 28 degrees, and referred him to Palmer.
As others have said, the best way for me or any other intermediate brewers, is to listen to everything the more experienced people have to say, read whatever I can, listen to the odd basic brewing podcast and use some of this information to make better beer.
When the information is contradictory, maybe this is the time for experimenting. But this leads me back to my problem of too many uncontrolled variables. I can still experiment, though, I just cannot be completely sure of the results.
Perhaps this is a best way of experimenting for me at the moment. Muddle through it, trying ideas and seeing what works and what doesn't. But in the end, all I'll be able to say is that some technique in the past may have made better beer for me. I still won't be able to tell someone "Do this because it always works and it is right."
As for Palmer, I'm a big fan. It's not a narrative that is supposed to be read from cover to cover (although many people, including myself have). It's a reference book that I can refer to about a specific aspect. It is also great to cross reference and confirm or debunk what someone may have told me.
So if I had to make one point in relation to PP's initial post it would be this. Don't be afraid to pass on information that you are fairly confident about, even if you don't know it to be absolute truth. I have only got to where I am today thanks to the wealth of information. Obvious misinformation is quickly shot down by the peer-review nature of this forum. Less clear cut information - well that's up to the user to decide. There is no perfect system in this imperfect world. For me, getting things right by slow degrees is all part of the process, and part of the fun.
But at the same time (okay, two points), I would encourage experienced brewers who can control all of the variables except the one that they are testing, to experiment away, and add their findings to the pool of information. Then I can try it, see if it works for me, see if it suits me and decided whether or not to add it to my process. Batch sparging in an esky and no chill (yes, I'm a fan) are two examples of this.
Cheers,
Wrenny
