Isn't this debate exactly how the scientific process works ... as pseudo-y as energetic banter via a homebrew forum might be?
-Techbrau and his crew brewed up some beer using a method based on a concept/theory/idea/something they read etc, documented their process, and said hey we think this beer is really great, lets tell the homebrew community about this method and see what others experiences are.
-They then share their process/ideas/observations with the homebrew community, who then points out flaws in there study, suggests changes, pokes hole etc. Gradually people will become interested, try it for themselves, and continue the debate/sharing of information and/or observations if the process is a significant advancement to this crazy hobby. If it is not, then this method will likely fizzle away.
I think this dialogue is great so long as it stays on the subject matter.
Galileo spent the last 10 years of his life on house arrest because he pissed the church off so much by endorsing the idea the earth revolved around the sun.
Absolutely! It's fun to watch all of this discussion. Really...the goal here is to reproduce some great German beer. I've been comparing beers tonight...all low oxygen, various process variants as I've been working on improving controls on my system. Crazy flavors across the board, it's interesting to tweak the levers and see what happens. This is nothing new to the world of brewing. Every detail matters To techbrau's point, if you are comparing oxidized wort, downstream not much matters relatively at that point, the flavor has been spent. We've been trying to preserve flavor along the process, given a dramatic change noticed during mash. Call it a dig at Brulosopher, but if an upstream process decision makes all downstream changes irrelevant, then what is the point of the experiment?
Someone said: "The fact that it's not 'peer reviewed' by PhD wielding brewing scientists does not take anything away from the results. In fact, Brulosopher states many times on his site that these are simple tests to test specific parameters and not to be held as some sort of game changer for brewing."
The concern I have with this is that while Marshall adamantly states this on every post (it is a funny anecdotal jibe at the whole process), the Brulosopher 'brand' now stands for much more than that... branding is powerful, especially in the U.S. And I see references to these 'simple' tests all over the place, quoted as valid references and exactly as game changers.
I get it, that's cool...we need guidance as we get going. But there's a point at which that information does become limiting. And that's Tech and Rabe's point. I've brewed just about every way there is to brew, various yeast strains, countless grain bills, etc, to reproduce my favorite German beers. I hear time after time about this or that making a great lager. But never 'triple blind' compared to commercial examples. That's what matters. Not crappy homebrew A to crappy homebrew B, but MY beer to MY favorite German equivalent. Am I getting closer? What do I want to do to mine to tweak it from the commercial example?
"Galileo spent the last 10 years of his life on house arrest because he pissed the church off so much by endorsing the idea the earth revolved around the sun." - I can't tell you how many times we discussed this very analogy before deciding to put the low oxygen brewing information out there.
Let me pose a different question. To clone Ayinger Jahrhundert, which, frankly is one of the main reasons (Augustiner, WO, take your pick) anyone is paying attention to this thread, how do YOU do it?
Instead of bantering about this or that process, let's move the ball forward. I just want my favorite beers.
Prost!