Brulosophy expert can't tell a Blonde Ale made with straight RO from RO plus minerals

[VikeMan]

Truth is you're proving my point...it doesn't matter what I think, they are using the current accepted research practice of P=.05 and they are clear with how many participants are required to show statistical significance based on the P value. In every single article they state the number needed to show statistical significance based on the P value of .05.

That's not entirely correct. p<0.05 simply means that "significance" has not been reached. It does not necessarily mean there's a difference. And p >= 0.05 does not necessarily mean there's not a difference. Any scientist or statistician will agree with what I just said. All it actually tells you, vis-a-vis a potential difference in triangle testing, is how likely it was (assuming no difference) that "X" number (or more) would have made the correct selection.

I do not believe any legitimate research paper would take a p value of 0.10 and say "... indicating participants were unable to reliably distinguish..."

They would very likely say "failed to reach significance" and leave it at that, because people who read those papers (not hobbyists) know exactly what that means. There's no need to add the misleading words "... indicating participants were unable to reliably distinguish..." when it is not likely that there was no difference.

 

[VikeMan]

Again, proving my point. It doesn't affect your brewing in anyway, shape or form.

You are right. It doesn't affect my brewing. But it affects others. I happen to care if others can make good beer.

And if people read the article using the same critical thinking skills they were taught in let's say middle school, then it shouldn't affect them either.

Middle school doesn't teach p values. It sounds like you're saying that if someone is misled by misleading words, it's their own fault. That's sad.

 

[eric19312]

I'm curious about the science behind the idea to run with the 10 semi-blind tests. This is pretty different than triangle testing since the brewer must know the variable being tested unlike in the triangle testing.

It sounds like a fair amount of work to do but certainly sounds like it might be a better tool than pouring a couple half pints and tasting them back and forth while thinking about whether that big new piece of equipment or extra hour spent slaving away in the brewing on a complicated technique made a perceptible difference.

They do a nice job attempting to eliminate confirmation bias and their so-called surprising results are not really all that different from the many experiments that have been done in wine tasting (am thinking of some of Frederic Brochet's experiments).

 

[VikeMan]

It sounds like a fair amount of work to do but certainly sounds like it might be a better tool than pouring a couple half pints and tasting them back and forth while thinking about whether that big new piece of equipment or extra hour spent slaving away in the brewing on a complicated technique made a perceptible difference.

I agree that this is better than just tasting back and forth. Completely honest presentation of the results would make it even better-er.

 

[Bilsch]

I always thought helping people and sharing correct information are what HBT was about. Calling out bad information when you see it is just part of being a good forum citizen. In this case, I am thankful people with greater knowledge on statistics take the time to explain in detail the facts.

 

[Sammy86]

That's not entirely correct. p<0.05 simply means that "significance" has not been reached. It does not necessarily mean there's a difference. And p >= 0.05 does not necessarily mean there's not a difference. Any scientist or statistician will agree with what I just said. All it actually tells you, vis-a-vis a potential difference in triangle testing, is how likely it was (assuming no difference) that "X" number (or more) would have made the correct selection.

I do not believe any legitimate research paper would take a p value of 0.10 and say "... indicating participants were unable to reliably distinguish..."

They would very likely say "failed to reach significance" and leave it at that, because people who read those papers (not hobbyists) know exactly what that means. There's no need to add the misleading words "... indicating participants were unable to reliably distinguish..." when it is not likely that there was no difference.

You're talking about home brewers, doing home brewer experiments...you could say they're all invalid because they aren't done in a lab in a completely controlled environment. Be real here, it bothers you because you don't like the language used. That's ok too, it's valid.

 

[VikeMan]

Be real here, it bothers you because you don't like the language used.

Yeah, I think I've been pretty clear about that. The language is misleading, and that's the issue I have with the write-ups.

 

[Beermeister32]

You guys are missing the point. Brulosophy is a great website and fun projects to follow in so many different areas of the brewing hobby. Everything from recipes, procedures, temperatures, yeast comparisons – a lot of great stuff!

You are getting bogged down on having to all be “right” about statistical values which there is obviously professional differences to methodology. You don’t have to argue some point into the ground.

This is supposed to be a fun hobby. Look at the effort he has put into this, it is fantastic and very interesting. All I hear is a lot of puffery about how you can do it better. Well, do it then, I’m getting tired hearing the sniping from the peanut gallery.

 

[VikeMan]

You are getting bogged down on having to all be “right” about statistical values which there is obviously professional differences to methodology. You don’t have to argue some point into the ground.

I'll assume you're talking about me? I'm not taking issue with Brulosophy's computation of statistical values or with their experimental methodology. So let's eliminate that strawman.

 

[rjhoff]

Yes, there are gullible, not so smart people in home brewing. Why do we care how good or bad their beer is? And who really gives a crap about p values?

 

[Dinadan]

Yes, there are gullible, not so smart people in home brewing. Why do we care how good or bad their beer is? And who really gives a crap about p values?

Good point!! Maybe I should not reveal this info, but I do not have a clue what p values are. I just skim over that part of the Brulosophy posts and look at the actual numbers of folks who like, prefer, or cannot tell the difference.

 

[IceChisel]

Everything is false, except that which lies in the in-between, the quantum state, in which case it's both true and false. Note that true is only a temporary state.

 

[rjhoff]

Good point!! Maybe I should not reveal this info, but I do not have a clue what p values are. I just skim over that part of the Brulosophy posts and look at the actual numbers of folks who like, prefer, or cannot tell the difference.

Haha, me too. I mean I may have learned about p values in a statistics course way too many years ago, but it’s long forgotten. This thread has caused me to pay more attention to Brulosophy than I had previously and I dug up an old interview with Marshall which caused me to have a greater affinity for his exbeeriments. I may tweak my process a little, but my learning curve has been a series of process adjustments based on input from a lot of sources.

 

[rjhoff]

Everything is false, except that which lies in the in-between, the quantum state, in which case it's both true and false. Note that true is only a temporary state.

True

 

[goodolarchie]

Again, proving my point. It doesn't affect your brewing in anyway, shape or form. And if people read the article using the same critical thinking skills they were taught in let's say middle school, then it shouldn't affect them either.

I'll go back to my post, wherein a majority of our college educated (even one Ph.D in biology) in the brew club are now outsourcing their methodology to Brulosophy, citing them as THE reason they no longer follow _______ practice, using it as an excuse to make shortcuts. Most people aren't approaching the hobby with statistical rigor (who learns stats in middle school? You're lucky if your college degree requires it... I digress). They do strive to make better beer, which is one of the prime missions of a homebrew club (it certainly is in ours), a community advance the pursuit of great homebrew - including the golden, amber, etc. liquid. I'm an educator by trade, it carries over into my passion projects. Frankly, Brulosophy is a headwind. I have to spend more time explaining why they should consider lager fermenting at 52 than at ale temps - or at least split their fermentations and compare for themselves instead of accepting p = 0.07

 

[Pkrd]

or at least split their fermentations and compare for themselves

What is the p value for that?

Is brulosophy, despite its well documented failings, not an order of magnitude better than "my last batch of this in October I think I did X(was drinking while brewing and spilt beer on my notes so not really sure) and this time I did Y and OMG best beer ever X sucks" which is pretty much my scientific method.

 

[Kent88]

This thread is locked.

 

[Kent88]

This thread is unlocked.

Personal attacks aren't allowed.

Political discussion isn't allowed.

Keep it civil. Stay on topic.

 

[day_trippr]

This thread looks more and more like a Monty Python sketch every day.

"Is this a methodically proper study then?"
"Yes indeed!"
"Really?"
"No"

Cheers! (A "Cheese Shop" tribute )

 

[schematix]

I had a sour beer

malt vinegar.

Pretty much sums it up right there. I've never had a sour that wasn't an immediate drain pour. It tastes bad because it's infected and your body is trying to tell you not to drink the contamination.

 

[goodolarchie]

What is the p value for that?

My point is I encourage everyone who reads into significant vs insignificant to forget about P values, just do an A-B test for themselves. If they are thinking about ridding yourself of a held technique, like fermenting lagers cool, at least split a batch and try them side by side.

If you're convinced warm lager fermentations turn out great (an oft-touted Brulosophism)... then the worst case scenario is you'll have two great batches of beer, one you can start drinking earlier while the other finishes.

Otherwise, at the end of the day you're outsourcing your brewing decisions to twenty palates of whom you've never met. The Brulosophy guys recommend trying it out for yourself too, I just put more emphasis on what is often a footnote.

 

[AzOr]

Wait, what were we talking about?

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

My point is I encourage everyone who reads into significant vs insignificant to forget about P values, just do an A-B test for themselves. If they are thinking about ridding yourself of a held technique, like fermenting lagers cool, at least split a batch and try them side by side.

If you're convinced warm lager fermentations turn out great (an oft-touted Brulosophism)... then the worst case scenario is you'll have two great batches of beer, one you can start drinking earlier while the other finishes.

Otherwise, at the end of the day you're outsourcing your brewing decisions to twenty palates of whom you've never met. The Brulosophy guys recommend trying it out for yourself too, I just put more emphasis on what is often a footnote.

recommend trying it out for yourself too, I just put more emphasis on what is often a footnote.

Side by sides are a far less reliable source to understand difference and preference. Twenty palates you’ve never met are far more reliable than your closest friend or even acquaintances because their relationship with you clouds their judgement of you brew.

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

Pretty much sums it up right there. I've never had a sour that wasn't an immediate drain pour. It tastes bad because it's infected and your body is trying to tell you not to drink the contamination.

Can’t agree with you here buddy. I’ve had some sours that were de****inglicious. Don’t quote me on the exactitudes but at Hellavu Brewing in Chandler, I’ve had a sour that knocked my socks off, in a good way.

 

[dmtaylor]

Pretty much sums it up right there. I've never had a sour that wasn't an immediate drain pour. It tastes bad because it's infected and your body is trying to tell you not to drink the contamination.

In continuation of this off-topic discussion, I personally do not enjoy extremely expensive 22-oz bombers of salad dressing and will not buy them anymore. Great on salads but not great for sipping.

 

[Sammy86]

If you're convinced warm lager fermentations turn out great (an oft-touted Brulosophism)... then the worst case scenario is you'll have two great batches of beer, one you can start drinking earlier while the other finishes.

I'm not only convinced of this but two BJCP judges who had my warm fermented German Pils gave a 40 and 38 are as well! Don't knock it until you try it!

 

[Big Monk]

In continuation of this off-topic discussion, I personally do not enjoy extremely expensive 22-oz bombers of salad dressing and will not buy them anymore. Great on salads but not great for sipping.

I am not anti-sour but have limited myself to one or 2 known brands of Belgian origin. Brown or Red Flemish sours are really my jam and I prefer Rodenbach to all others.

Ommegang has some very tasty sour beers as well, including their Pale Sour, Rosetta and Brunetta, which if I remember correctly are made by Liefmans.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

----------------------

I am not anti-sour but have limited myself to one or 2 known brands of Belgian origin. Brown or Red Flemish sours are really my jam and I prefer Rodenbach to all others.

Ommegang has some very tasty sour beers as well, including their Pale Sour, Rosetta and Brunetta, which if I remember correctly are made by Liefmans.

Does true souring require live Lactobacillus? If so, then it is worth mentioning that there is zero live Lactobacillus in Lactic Acid.

 

[VikeMan]

Does true souring require live Lactobacillus? If so, then it is worth mentioning that there is zero live Lactobacillus in Lactic Acid.

I think the beers @Big Monk referred to probably use pedio/acetobacter as well as Lactobacillus.

But for Lactobacillus beers (think Berliner/Gose), I think most people would say that simply dosing a beer with lactic acid probably wouldn't get you there. Lactobacillus makes things other than just lactic acid (analogous to brewers yeast making more than just alcohol). I really don't know what all those things are, but there's more than just a "pure lactic acid" flavor after souring with Lactobacillus.

It would be nice if dosing with acid could make the same beer. I think a lot of brewers, both comm'l and home, would take advantage of that. It does get mentioned in articles from time to time as a quick way to make a sour, but always seems to come with a caveat that it's not the same. Full disclosure: I haven't tried it.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Lallemand now offers two bacteria and one yeast which provide for souring during fermentation.

1) Wildbrew Sour Pitch (bacteria)
2) WildBrew Helveticus Pitch (bacteria)
3) WildBrew Philly Sour (yeast)

 

[eric19312]

Side by sides are a far less reliable source to understand difference and preference. Twenty palates you’ve never met are far more reliable than your closest friend or even acquaintances because their relationship with you clouds their judgement of you brew.

This +1

SIde by sides are just terrible. Unless you are measuring something clearly discernible with an instrument...final gravity with a hydrometer, IBU with a lab instrument, or can be tested simultaneously with your eyes (clarity, color, head retention) you need to understand how easily your other senses are to mislead. Look at these famous experiments:

In 2001, Frederic Brochet conducted two experiments at the University of Bordeaux.

In one experiment, he got 54 oenology (the study of wine tasting and wine making) undergraduates together and had them taste one glass of red wine and one glass of white wine. He had them describe each wine in as much detail as their expertise would allow. What he didn't tell them was both were the same wine. He just dyed the white one red. In the other experiment, he asked the experts to rate two different bottles of red wine. One was very expensive, the other was cheap. Again, he tricked them. This time he had put the cheap wine in both bottles. So what were the results?

The tasters in the first experiment, the one with the dyed wine, described the sorts of berries and grapes and tannins they could detect in the red wine just as if it really was red. Every single one, all 54, could not tell it was white. In the second experiment, the one with the switched labels, the subjects went on and on about the cheap wine in the expensive bottle. They called it complex and rounded. They called the same wine in the cheap bottle weak and flat.
source: 'You Are Not So Smart': Why We Can't Tell Good Wine From Bad

Taste and smell are clearly blunt instruments that are easily mislead when it comes to tasting wine. I have no doubt the same applies to beer. I hear the argument that Brulosophy could do better experiments but I am still not aware of anyone else at the homebrewer level doing so. Yes you super-tasters, 20 randoms doing a flawed triangle tests analyzed by azz backwards statistics are more interesting as a data point (to me at least) than your own side-by-side anecdotes.

 

[h22lude]

Again, proving my point. It doesn't affect your brewing in anyway, shape or form. And if people read the article using the same critical thinking skills they were taught in let's say middle school, then it shouldn't affect them either.

This statement doesn't make sense to me. Are you expecting brand new home brewers to realize Bru is using sub par testing practices and the shortcut methods they are testing is not the way to make good beer?

 

[Sammy86]

This statement doesn't make sense to me. Are you expecting brand new home brewers to realize Bru is using sub par testing practices and the shortcut methods they are testing is not the way to make good beer?

I am expecting brand new home brewers as well as most adults to read something with critical thinking skills. I don't believe that's asking too much of people.

Your opinion is that they are using Methods of making beer that are not good...Have you tried one of their beers using the methods? I'm not getting into the whole testing methods again because I'm not changing your mind and you're not changing mine.

 

[AzOr]

 

[Gnomebrewer]

Are you expecting brand new home brewers to realize ... the shortcut methods they are testing is not the way to make good beer?

I disagree with this. I think the methods that they use make good beer. I believe that better methods (which are also more complicated) can make great beer, but the methods they use are a good starting point (and simple) to get a new brewer into the hobby.


Note: the sub-par testing methods part of h22lude's quote is removed because I definitely do agree with that.

 

[Big Monk]

I disagree with this. I think the methods that they use make good beer. I believe that better methods (which are also more complicated) can make great beer, but the methods they use are a good starting point (and simple) to get a new brewer into the hobby.


Note: the sub-par testing methods part of h22lude's quote is removed because I definitely do agree with that.

This is, at least as I see it, the line in the sand.

There seems to be a belief in a mythical line in the sand where decent/good beer becomes great beer when go go from applying “good enough”/“simple” methods to “better”/“more complicated” methods.

Seems like total hogwash to me. Anyone can make world class beer using even the most basic equipment. It’s all down to how you prioritize methods and practices.

This whole thing is turning into some sort of a culture war for no reason.

 

[h22lude]

I am expecting brand new home brewers as well as most adults to read something with critical thinking skills. I don't believe that's asking too much of people.

Your opinion is that they are using Methods of making beer that are not good...Have you tried one of their beers using the methods? I'm not getting into the whole testing methods again because I'm not changing your mind and you're not changing mine.

Sure, people can use critical thinking skills but if they keep reading that Bru is a good source of info, why would they believe any different? You obviously like their info, and that is fine for you. I (as well as a lot of others) feel they are giving bad misdirected information on cutting corners which can hurt the hobby. And as you said, I'm not changing your mind and you're not changing mine.

 

[Clyde McCoy]

Apologies if this has already been pointed out, but the author is comparing RO to lightly-treated water.

Ca 0 | Mg 0 | Na 0 | SO4 0 | Cl 0

vs.

Ca 55 | Mg 5 | Na 0 | SO4 72 | Cl 59

Grains, hops, and fermentation will contribute tens (Na) to potentially hundreds (SO4, Cl) of ppm depending on recipe, process, equipment, etc. Perhaps the difference in starting hardness could be noticeable (0 vs. 158 ppm), but again, the difference isn't that large.

This experiment would be much more informative if the author had submitted the finished beers for water analysis. I'd be willing to bet their profiles came out quite similar.

So in a magical world where all other variables could be perfectly controlled, I'd be pretty surprised if anyone could reliably tell these starting profiles apart.

And no, this is not an argument against treating your brewing liquor.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

In my book that isn't lightly mineralized water. I'd call it moderately mineralized.

 

[Clyde McCoy]

In my book that isn't lightly mineralized water. I'd call it moderately mineralized.

Fair enough, but what if mineral analysis of the finished beers showed similar ion concentrations? If that were the case, I imagine the title of this thread would be worded differently.