"Things I'm sure you don't need to do to make great beer&#

[yoboseyo]

What Brulosopher shows is that human palates are remarkably unreliable at discerning differences in controlled conditions, and when they can they are remarkably unreliable at deciding what is pleasant.

The idea of absolute truth is pretty central too homebrew perfectionists. If theory predicts that doing X will have a positive effect, then doing X can't be wrong, and it's backed up by real science! But what about practical truth, or knowing to the bounds of what we can discern? Homebrewers don't have tools that measure the chemical compositions of our wort or the number of active yeast cells, etc. If mashing for longer theoretically creates more fermentables, how many more fermentable sugar molecules are in your wort as a result of mashing for longer?

Sticking to methods based on what you think is real science is an act of faith, because you don't have the ability to corroborate your findings. If you're to go about finding practical truth, what would your methods be?

 

[MHB]

To follow on from the example you proposed, FG, or more fully apparent attenuation as measured by an hydrometer.
From OG and FG we all know we can calculate Alcohol, with a bit of very basic maths the number of moles of alcohol could be derived - from there the number of fermentable sugar molecules is a given.
Not even hard science to do but never the less real measured outcomes, a simple measurement of the difference between a short and long mash isn't beyond the competence of anyone who can float an hydrometer in beer and finger count.

Admittedly some maybe even most things aren't as easy to quantify as the above. That doesn't negate the science behind what is published in quality brewing books. I would agree that there a few "Absolute Truths" in brewing, there are however more than a few falsehoods.
Mark

 

[billygoat]

Plus its not new - coolships have been around for centuries; Hook Norton's is 116 years old and still in use.

I've visited Hook Norton twice over the last 5 years and the coolship isn't used.

 

[manticle]

What Brulosopher shows is that human palates are remarkably unreliable at discerning differences in controlled conditions, and when they can they are remarkably unreliable at deciding what is pleasant.

The idea of absolute truth is pretty central too homebrew perfectionists. If theory predicts that doing X will have a positive effect, then doing X can't be wrong, and it's backed up by real science! But what about practical truth, or knowing to the bounds of what we can discern? Homebrewers don't have tools that measure the chemical compositions of our wort or the number of active yeast cells, etc. If mashing for longer theoretically creates more fermentables, how many more fermentable sugar molecules are in your wort as a result of mashing for longer?

Sticking to methods based on what you think is real science is an act of faith, because you don't have the ability to corroborate your findings. If you're to go about finding practical truth, what would your methods be?

I absolutely agree that the human palate is one of the most important quality assessment tools we have at our disposal. George Fix, late eminent brewing scientist agrees. In keeping with what you're saying though, I shouldn't be relying on the palates of Marshall's group of mates doing some tasting on beers he's made a certain way with some hypotheses about the whys and wherefores. I should base my assessment of my own beer and process around my own palate (which I ultimately do - various brewing theory just informs and educates on which path I can try for improvement or to diagnose something tasting NQR).

I do contend that calling an acceptance of scientific ideas an act of faith misconstrues the definition of faith and misunderstands the distinction between scientific method and faith.

No-one has claimed 'absolute truth' in either camp by the way. That's a straw man concept that can be blown away in the wind.

Finally homebrewers do use measuring instruments - hydromters as mentioned, thermometers, test strips and pH meters. I know some who use microscopes to count yeast cells and others who have access to work based lab equipment which they utilise for beer quality analysis.

 

[yoboseyo]

I do contend that calling an acceptance of scientific ideas an act of faith misconstrues the definition of faith and misunderstands the distinction between scientific method and faith.

Probably not faith but I wouldn't categorize it as science either. Being able to corroborate your findings is a part of the scientific method. Not saying beer making isn't scientific, but the homebrewing process isn't exactly following the scientific method.

The ultimate test is whether your beer tastes any good to you, and applying science to improve it is just a means of doing that. But the effort of making objectively the best beer (assuming it exists) would be fruitless due to your really shitty measuring stick, but the results of what you get on that measuring stick is self evident and doesn't need to be corroborated.

And this is what most homebrewers do - they apply what their understanding of science until they get a palatable product, and past that point, they lack the incentive and the tools to improve their understanding and their product

 

[peteru]

I can see how this line of reasoning can head down the philosophical path and even take on a "religious" angle.

However, at the end of the day a pragmatic approach is needed when the objective is to produce a reasonable quantity of product you can consume. Preferably in a cost effective and timely fashion using "backyard technology."

I take most of the stuff I see on blogs and forums as different opinions and lines of investigation. The experiments are very much a case of "I tinkered to satisfy my curiosity." rather than "I am doing real science." More often or not, publishing such information is a case of trying to stimulate conversation and the exchange of ideas, which is not a bad idea. It would be foolish to mistake this for real science. As anyone with a science degree would know, contributing new knowledge to a discipline is hard work. Having your work picked apart, analysed, examined, reviewed, criticised, revised, modified and possibly rejected is a normal part of the scientific process. The job of the scientist is to understand something and build a bulletproof case for the theories and postulations one comes up with. That's not something that happens over the course of a weekend or a month. Real science takes lots and lots of failures, persistence and a surprisingly long amount of time. Historically, many scientific discoveries or theories were not commonly accepted until the scientists were dead and have spent their entire lives working on a particular subject. Take gravity waves as an example - Einstein has been dead for a while and it's only now that we can accept his theory.

tl;dr - It would be foolish to treat blogs and forums as sources of scientific information. It's more like arts and crafts at the local community college.

 

[manticle]

Probably not faith but I wouldn't categorize it as science either. Being able to corroborate your findings is a part of the scientific method. Not saying beer making isn't scientific, but the homebrewing process isn't exactly following the scientific method.

The ultimate test is whether your beer tastes any good to you, and applying science to improve it is just a means of doing that. But the effort of making objectively the best beer (assuming it exists) would be fruitless due to your really shitty measuring stick, but the results of what you get on that measuring stick is self evident and doesn't need to be corroborated.

And this is what most homebrewers do - they apply what their understanding of science until they get a palatable product, and past that point, they lack the incentive and the tools to improve their understanding and their product

You wouldn't call accepting a scientific idea science? So taking antibiotics for a bacterial chest infection or bandaging a wound is unscientific until you can replicate the model in your own lab? It is impossible to test and retest every single idea for yourself in any meaningful way. I really feel this line of argument is reaching - it's the same basic debate creationists use to criticise evolution for being a theory, just like theirs. It is not up to iindividuals to run their own tests before accepting science - it is up to those providing the evidence to do it in a way that can be tested and replicated again and again and again. Once that is done, it will be accepted until such time as that replication is either not forthcoming or another more likely mechanism is shown to be the influential/deciding factor.

I absolutely agree tasting your own beer is of utmost importance and trying your own methods and processes likewise - my argument is that brulosophy replaces mountains of evidence in one direction with insubstantial evidence in another and until YOU try what they say and evaluate using your palate, you're still relying on what someone else says - therefore as much a leap of faith or whatever as any other approach, if not more. I have personally tried (not always deliberately) some of the methods described in brulosophy and most times my own palate disagrees with their findings.

 

[peteru]

I have personally tried (not always deliberately) some of the methods described in brulosophy and most times my own palate disagrees with their findings.

Well, that sounds a lot like the beginnings of the scientific process. If they publish the details of the experiment and their findings, then you go and replicate that experiment, you're on the path to science. The parts that are missing are repeatability, large enough sample population, controlled variables and peer review.

Who knows, perhaps one of these articles will inspire an honours student or even a postgraduate to do some real science and write a thesis on a subject that has not been already researched. There is nothing wrong with challenging the status quo, but given that beer making processes have been continuously improved for centuries by a significant number of people, it'll be hard work to come up with something better and have it accepted.

Also, acceptance of scientific theory does not necessarily translate into acceptance in industry practice. Once you have the science, you need to back it up with engineering skills to actually build a process that is actually workable in practical situations.

 

[MHB]

FFS what do you think has been filling professional brewing literature for the last 100 years!
Do you think people haven't sat down and recorded the effects of mash time, pH, Ca levels... as a result brewing has moved from a 400 minute cycle to about half that, improved hygiene and made the best beer in history (well given us that option).
The basic research was done by people now dead of old age, the effects of most of the basic variables have been long quantified, and the hard won results are recorded so people can learn from them and build on those basics. There are now breweries boiling for 45 minutes (it was 120 minutes a generation ago) but in special systems that cost millions (seriously) because energy is a big variable cost in brewing.

I've been here for a bit over 10 years, every couple of months someone reinvents brewing and wants to throw out what we know and replace it with invariably a cheaper, quicker, cheaper, lazier, cheaper... way to bang out beer that must be just as good cos his mates can choke it down when its free.

Grow the **** up learn some basic brewing, if you are too tight to buy a good book or two go to the IBD learning resources for good free information, Braukaiser, even read Palmers Book will all help take you in the direction of brewing better.

When you know a little of the basics of what is happening in the brewing process, it gets a lot easier to filter complete crap out of the equation, and help to stop people being mesmerised by how tight their pucker can get.

Time for me to get way the hell out of this thread - the BS is just way too deep.
M

 

[manticle]

Well, that sounds a lot like the beginnings of the scientific process. If they publish the details of the experiment and their findings, then you go and replicate that experiment, you're on the path to science. The parts that are missing are repeatability, large enough sample population, controlled variables and peer review.

Who knows, perhaps one of these articles will inspire an honours student or even a postgraduate to do some real science and write a thesis on a subject that has not been already researched. There is nothing wrong with challenging the status quo, but given that beer making processes have been continuously improved for centuries by a significant number of people, it'll be hard work to come up with something better and have it accepted.

Also, acceptance of scientific theory does not necessarily translate into acceptance in industry practice. Once you have the science, you need to back it up with engineering skills to actually build a process that is actually workable in practical situations.

Except that that process has long since been begun. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

As for engineering - pretty sure that's keeping up with modern brewing science.

MHB or Klangers can confirm (if MHB hasn't headed for the beach in disgust).

 

[Zorco]

tl;dr - It would be foolish to treat blogs and forums as sources of scientific information. It's more like arts and crafts at the local community college.

But there are quality thinkers on this forum. And brewing tends to filter out deadheads. AHB is a more than reasonable source of information. Should we create a scientific information thread which educated people on the scientific method and handles submission from brewers applying scientific reasoning then we do not only brewing a service, but our entire society.

 

[GalBrew]

But there are quality thinkers on this forum.

And brewing tends to filter out deadheads.

On the first point there are a few left, but there used to be many more.

On the second point, that is unfortunately completely incorrect. There are plenty of people around here that know enough to get into trouble but not enough to know what they are talking about. There are whole threads of cringeworthy material on here, but hey that's the Internet for you.

I find it interesting that there are sooooo many home brewers that want to completely reinvent the wheel, like they are a revolutionary genius. It's a bit laughable after a while. People waste their time on 'tweaking' marginal variables in their process at best, while ignoring the fundamentals as they aren't 'cool/trendy/whatever'.

 

[yoboseyo]

You wouldn't call accepting a scientific idea science? So taking antibiotics for a bacterial chest infection or bandaging a wound is unscientific until you can replicate the model in your own lab? It is impossible to test and retest every single idea for yourself in any meaningful way. I really feel this line of argument is reaching - it's the same basic debate creationists use to criticise evolution for being a theory, just like theirs. It is not up to iindividuals to run their own tests before accepting science - it is up to those providing the evidence to do it in a way that can be tested and replicated again and again and again. Once that is done, it will be accepted until such time as that replication is either not forthcoming or another more likely mechanism is shown to be the influential/deciding factor.

The difference is that clinical trials for medicine are conducted for the purpose of predicting its effectiveness in the real world when its applied in the same conditions as in the trial. When it comes to brewing, where they have the means to conduct R&D to improve their processes, i.e, commercial breweries, is not always applicable to homebrew, and their goals are different so the scientific method applied to both instances follow different paradigms - they are much more about creating a consistent product than an objectively good product, and there's very little good science when it comes to what flavours are favourable and thresholds at which they are distinguishable, which is important for homebrewers.

 

[peteru]

I don't see the reason to get so heated up about other people doing it their own way. I certainly don't see the blogs and forum posts as some kind of a gospel and I don't view those people describing their experiences as some kind of a revolution that tries to convert everyone. I think you are probably getting frustrated because you view the posts that detail "what I did on the weekend" as an attempt at trying to undermine the existing body of knowledge and replace it with their point of view. If I was taking that point of view, I too would be worked up about their efforts.

However, in the age of the Internet, one very much has to have the ability to do critical research and assume that the vast amount of information being "published" on the Internet are personal opinions.

I don't think we disagree about the fundamentals here, but perhaps we have a different view about tolerating other people's opinions. I'm quite OK with other people being wrong about something and being happy in their ignorance, as long as they give me the same courtesy and let me have my opinion.

 

[klangers]

1. Not being able to measure variables does not negate the value of considering them. I cannot measure, nor verify, the varying effect of gravity between items of varying masses with the tools I have at home. I hence have no way of personally verifying Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Lord Cavendish did this experiment with two large lead balls hanging on chains, and measured the displacement as they were brought near each other. I make sure, however, that I do take Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation into account for my engineering calculations.
2. Taste can be measured and predicted scientifically, albeit requires expensive kit
3. People may see dismissal of science (that they have spent a long time studying) as disrespect to their passion/expertise, and hence may take it personally.

 

[Zorco]

On the second point, that is unfortunately completely incorrect.

I find it interesting that there are sooooo......

deadhead

I see what you did and I know why. But my statement is correct the way it is. You needed to choose another name for the collective referred to in the rest of your prose.

 

[GalBrew]

deadhead

I see what you did and I know why. But my statement is correct the way it is. You needed to choose another name for the collective referred to in the rest of your prose.

I'll let you pick.

 

[barls]

play nice all. myself and the rest of the moderation team are watching.

 

[Zorco]

It has become a little tense, but Everything is going to be OK. :icon_cheers:

People waste their time on 'tweaking' marginal variables in their process at best, while ignoring the fundamentals as they aren't 'cool/trendy/whatever'.

I like to think of these sort of 'revolutionaries' as people who are starting to develop a sense of ownership over their brewing. To me, they look more like people trying to stand out, or be acknowledged.

And they should be. This is a great craft. Let their beers be judged and see how they fare.

When I've dialed in my process, adjust a parameter in a deliberate way and sense the desired result - makes me bloody stoked. Yep, sure I tell my little circle of brew mates.

Maybe 'egotist', 'presumptuous', or perhaps 'proud' for the people you talk about.


The loss here is that MHB, Klangers and GalBrew are wound up in a way that might make them not want to help other brewers out.

This I'd want to avoid at all cost.

Cheers all.

 

[GalBrew]

It has become a little tense, but Everything is going to be OK. :icon_cheers:


I like to think of these sort of 'revolutionaries' as people who are starting to develop a sense of ownership over their brewing. To me, they look more like people trying to stand out, or be acknowledged.

And they should be. This is a great craft. Let their beers be judged and see how they fare.

When I've dialed in my process, adjust a parameter in a deliberate way and sense the desired result - makes me bloody stoked. Yep, sure I tell my little circle of brew mates.

Maybe 'egotist', 'presumptuous', or perhaps 'proud' for the people you talk about.


The loss here is that MHB, Klangers and GalBrew are wound up in a way that might make them not want to help other brewers out.

This I'd want to avoid at all cost.

Cheers all.

I'm not that wound up, but it would be nice if people had a fundamental understanding of the theory and process before trying to reinvent things. I personally researched and read for a year before I brewed my first batch. The information (good information that is) is so easy to get these days and people rely on the 'rubbish' found all over the web.

You are right about one thing though, I struggle to muster the energy to help out when people can't even be bothered reading the free copy of Palmers book or the Yeast book, or whatever (and you can tell by the questions). But they will be building a PLC to run their brewery or a PID controller for their HLT.

Anyway, carry on......