Brulosophy

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I think this explains how useful 0.05 is...

With people interpreting Brulosophy's results, though, it's a little different... If they'd select a p value of 0.20 instead of 0.05, as I claim they should, it makes their results a whole lot more interesting, that at 80% confidence *maybe* there's a difference between the two beers, which would warrant further experimentation, rather than people saying "there's never any difference so I can brew whatever way I want".
 
With people interpreting Brulosophy's results, though, it's a little different... If they'd select a p value of 0.20 instead of 0.05, as I claim they should, it makes their results a whole lot more interesting, that at 80% confidence *maybe* there's a difference between the two beers, which would warrant further experimentation, rather than people saying "there's never any difference so I can brew whatever way I want".

But....that would imply....nay, demand....replication!

The hell you say! :)
 
This is going to sound snarky...it probably is snarky...OK...it’s snarky... <sigh>

There are already 14 threads with Brulosophy in the title...what are we trying to accomplish in the 15th that the first 14 didn’t?

Well, for one thing, I am here this time. I wasn't involved in the 14 previous threads. So, new independent points of view can prompt some interesting discussions, as you can obviously see above.
 
I credit Brulosophy for giving me the motivation to start brewing some delicious lagers when I had assumed my system (temp control) was only appropriate for ales.

My triangle of tasting is me, my family, my friends. If we all like it, it's a total success although some of my friends just enjoy free beer. It is most important that I like it.
 
Last edited:
I’m interested in epistemology (the study of knowledge) and then trying to apply it to things in my life like homebrewing. If you start to ask yourself, “What do I really know for sure”, you find that much of what we think we know is flawed.

Didn't realize there was a name for study for knowledge. Not to get too far off topic but in my early 30s after years long spiritual search and never becoming completely satified with realizations, broke down every I knew and well humanity knew to find the root of truth. That boiled down to the 4 fundamental laws of physics...and even then scientists are still refining. Now throw in some quantum physics and our macoscopic reality is very haphazard. Not that we can't come up with close approximations but one can not know the thousands, or millions, of variables of reality at any given time so at best we have good guesses, like Entropy, which by the way sucks! Ha! Just ask my aging body! [emoji16] As I've headed into my 50s tho, I've realized that's good enough for me. Carry on and brew on!
 
Curious what people's thoughts are regarding brulosophy. I'll go first. I'm of the opinion that making one or two mistakes may not always come thru on the final product as often showed on brulosophy tests. However im also if the opinion that those mistakes still do make a lesser product regardless and the more of them made on the same brew can end up making a seriously flawed product. I have noticed alot of people that reference brulosophy tests often say " these things don't matter at the homebrew scale" . I've never really understood the difference? Aside from batch size I cannot see what the difference is between pro and home brewing. What do the pros do that would not have the same benefits at home. Do you agree that there has to be a difference in pro vs home brewing? I try to make a professional product at home and when I mention that in other posts it's often laughed at by most. Chhers
Im sure a lot of it has to do with ending up with a predictable and consistent product ,batch to batch ,because after all , they are selling theirs.
I personally have not read but a few excerpts from Brulosophy only because theyve been quoted in this forum. I read everything I can and pick what information I can personally achieve ,use or have access to here at home. I dont BIAB nor do I LODO, seems like either a bunch of unnecessary steps that don't give a result better than what I'm already doing. I'm not saying those who do either or something else are doing anything wrong. If they like their beer, fine. I like simple .I'm happy with my 3 tier gravity electric rig ,a cooler mash tun,and still use glass 5 and 6 gallon carboys to ferment, and ...I bottle by hand. I dont need to buy ss conicals or fancy control panels. I still use my HBS's website brew building page to build recipes. It works for me. For me , so far , i get results I like. I'm not planning on entering any beer contests. I drink it and serve it to friends. YMMV
 
Last edited:
I agree with this comment, was thinking the same thing. EXCEPT... in my subjective opinion, I believe my definition of "better" is consistent with Derek's definition, as I too am unable to replicate the holiness of some Belgian examples.
whether one beer (whether homebrew or commercial) is better than the other ...opinions, nothing more...remember there are people with an active pulse who think that Bud Light is "good" beer.
 
I am a huge Brulosopy fan. After a 2.5 year break, they are part of the reason that I am excited about brewing again and doing my own experiments to demonstrate to myself what does and does not improve/impact my beers. It is amazing how much false or debunked info I see repeated over and over (in forums, articles, books, etc.).

I agree with the general idea that has been pointed out here...along the lines of there being 100 small steps that are important to make a good beer. If you skip/change one of those steps it might not make a notable different. The difference between one brewer that skimps on 10 steps and the brewer that improves 10 steps is the difference between mediocre beer and great beer.

I have mixed feeling on their use of triangle tests. If you have not tried a triangle test, do it. They are hard. I wonder how much of an impact it would have if testers were told the general area of the experiment vs being completely blind. I also wonder if people were given a "no difference" option, if it would reduce false positives. Personally, I think I like the brewers impressions more than the triangle test results.

They have opened my eyes to how strong bias is. I was recently doing some blind tastings of a beer with brewing salts added. When I knew the sample had Gypsum, the impact to the hop sharpness was crystal clear. Sample those blind and I had zero clue. With any type of comparison test, you at least need to do a blind side by side test, otherwise there is no validity in the comparison.
 
It’s not a statement worth commenting on.

It’s pure hogwash.

Ok, I'll bite. While I don't completely buy into AZCooler's concept I do feel there is some evidence to support it. There is a direct correlation between the impact/prestige of peer-reviewed journals and the rates of article retractions. For example, in the life sciences the big three - Cell, Science, Nature - have the highest rates of retraction. So, our sources for the most impactful and important information are also the most likely to be wrong. There are other factors that play into this but it is an indication that supposed experts of the highest level are also the most likely to be disseminating flawed information (which can actually escape editorial and peer-review).
 
Ok, I'll bite. While I don't completely buy into AZCooler's concept I do feel there is some evidence to support it. There is a direct correlation between the impact/prestige of peer-reviewed journals and the rates of article retractions. For example, in the life sciences the big three - Cell, Science, Nature - have the highest rates of retraction. So, our sources for the most impactful and important information are also the most likely to be wrong. There are other factors that play into this but it is an indication that supposed experts of the highest level are also the most likely to be disseminating flawed information (which can actually escape editorial and peer-review).

Brewing Science is an applied science. The people, especially academics in the field, contributing are academics and professionals who typically teach other professionals in the brewing field.

Experts in brewing science are typically directly applying those concepts in the fields with measurable results.
 
Ok, I'll bite. While I don't completely buy into AZCooler's concept I do feel there is some evidence to support it. There is a direct correlation between the impact/prestige of peer-reviewed journals and the rates of article retractions. For example, in the life sciences the big three - Cell, Science, Nature - have the highest rates of retraction. So, our sources for the most impactful and important information are also the most likely to be wrong. There are other factors that play into this but it is an indication that supposed experts of the highest level are also the most likely to be disseminating flawed information (which can actually escape editorial and peer-review).

Correlation does not equal causation. Without going into too many details, the highest profile retractions of course will occur in the highest profile journals (for a multitude of reasons). But that doesn’t mean we assume all scientists (experts, etc) are bad.
 
It’s not a statement worth commenting on.

It’s pure hogwash.

Yes it’s hogwash, but you cannot ignore this type of “belief” and allow it to persist. It’s like a disease that will spread to other susceptible people. This is how we have mass (relatively speaking) movements towards anti-fill in the blank (vaccine, climate change, medicine, etc).
 
Yes it’s hogwash, but you cannot ignore this type of “belief” and allow it to persist. It’s like a disease that will spread to other susceptible people. This is how we have mass (relatively speaking) movements towards anti-fill in the blank (vaccine, climate change, medicine, etc).

I agree. I’m just so tired...:(
 
Brewing Science is an applied science. The people, especially academics in the field, contributing are academics and professionals who typically teach other professionals in the brewing field.

Experts in brewing science are typically directly applying those concepts in the fields with measurable results.

Yes, of course, I totally agree there is a discipline dependence. I was writing more in general terms. This being said, I have, and do, work with applied scientists - engineers in the alternative energy field, not the brewing field though - and similar problems to those I outlined exist there as well. Somehow I don't think the brewing field would be completely immune to it. I have read some pretty crappy published articles on brewing science that I can't imagine would be put to use in a brewery.

For what it is worth, I would like to think that anybody here would buy anybody else a beer. These are really interesting discussions and I think they deserve an open and friendly discourse.
 
Yes it’s hogwash, but you cannot ignore this type of “belief” and allow it to persist. It’s like a disease that will spread to other susceptible people. This is how we have mass (relatively speaking) movements towards anti-fill in the blank (vaccine, climate change, medicine, etc).

Getting way of topic, but I am not sure what you mean here. To use your example, the anti-vaccine movement we are suffering through is because a so-called "expert" found a voice for his "expert" opinion through a high-profile journal. It survived peer-review and no one questioned it until the damage was done.
 
Correlation does not equal causation. Without going into too many details, the highest profile retractions of course will occur in the highest profile journals (for a multitude of reasons). But that doesn’t mean we assume all scientists (experts, etc) are bad.

No, certainly not. And given a choice would I consult Joe Blow on the street vs. a perceived expert? I would of course go with the expert. Its more of a cautionary tale that there is human element to all of this and sometimes even what the experts say should be questioned.
 
Getting way of topic, but I am not sure what you mean here. To use your example, the anti-vaccine movement we are suffering through is because a so-called "expert" found a voice for his "expert" opinion through a high-profile journal. It survived peer-review and no one questioned it until the damage was done.

Andrew Wakefield was discredited over 20 years ago. There will always be bad apples in any area, but the scientific response in this area has been more than enough to persuade a rational mind.
 
Andrew Wakefield was discredited over 20 years ago. There will always be bad apples in any area, but the scientific response in this area has been more than enough to persuade a rational mind.

Yes, you made my point precisely. He was an "expert," published his "expert" opinion (peer-reviewed and all), there was lag while the damage was done, then ultimately an international panel investigated and discredited his work. However, the initial publication gave him the illusion of credibility as an "expert" and the minds that still take this "expert" opinion seriously are not rational (I don't mean to offend anyone here...). Drawing on your earlier post, I feel there is an issue that expert opinions are (in my expert opinion ;)) not viewed with enough initial skepticism.
 
OK folks, this thread has gotten out of hand. One of the fundamental rules of discourse on HBT to to discuss the topic, not other posters/members. Derogatory comments about other members are never allowed. I have had to delete 34 posts (about 1/3 of the total posts in this thread) because they violated that rule, were responses to other posts in violation, or were otherwise off topic.

Stick to the topic, and absolutely no sniping at others, or the thread will get locked, and flagrant abuse may get sanctioned.

If you have any comments about the moderation, or think other posts should have been deleted as well, start a conversation (aka PM) with me. Posts in this thread about moderation will be deleted.

doug293cz
HBT Moderator
 
All good answers. Maybe a different way of asking the question would be. Do you agree all the things they find insignificant are actually unimportant

No, I don't. They did an experiment on 'fast lagers', am I correct, or was that a different person(?), and found that the traditional lagering methods didn't make a difference. In any case, I know that, in my lagers, beers that I've fermented for a month and then lagered for a month taste better and get better scores at competitions than beers that I didn't. So, I take my time with lagers now.

Now, that's for my process, of course - someone else could make better beers than mine using fast lager techniques, perhaps. But for the beers I've made, I've had better success with slower lagering than fast.

Its hard to make absolute statements in the brewing world, there are way too many variables.
 
So now we're back on track I should clarify my original question better. I have nothing against brulosophy or even have any issues with there experiments and or outcome. They do there tests and report what they find. It's cool they do. The issue at hand to me is more so brewers that feel doing any of the additional steps that were found insignificant are a waste and referencing the brulosophy test as proof. Again my stance is taking 1-2 shortcuts is possibly so minute it's unnoticible to most but take 15- 20 shortcuts and it's gonna be noticible. Cheers
 
Per Op’s Original q’s...

What do the pros do that would not have the same benefits at home.

They charge for their beer...that would definitely benefit me at home. :)

Do you agree that there has to be a difference in pro vs home brewing? Yes
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So now we're back on track I should clarify my original question better. I have nothing against brulosophy or even have any issues with there experiments and or outcome. They do there tests and report what they find. It's cool they do. The issue at hand to me is more so brewers that feel doing any of the additional steps that were found insignificant are a waste and referencing the brulosophy test as proof. Again my stance is taking 1-2 shortcuts is possibly so minute it's unnoticible to most but take 15- 20 shortcuts and it's gonna be noticible. Cheers

It would seem from this and other threads that you and I are in opposition, in fact after discussion, I generally find that though we brew differently, we are not far apart in our paths. I certainly have my limits as to what I will do to make a great beer. Very few if any of us own a beer centrifuge, which I think could be an excellent tool to make a really delicious beer. In fact, that may be why RIPScotty can’t replicate Trappist brew, as in my reading, I’ve found that at least one of the Trappist breweries uses a centrifuge. A big part of why I like to brew is that what I’m doing isn’t far from what my great grandfathers great grandfather did. It connects me to them in time. Glycol chilled stainless steel conicals would make my beer taste worse even though it may make better beer.

My quest is for the Soul of good beer. I believe that Brülosophy is on the same quest.
 
It would seem from this and other threads that you and I are in opposition, in fact after discussion, I generally find that though we brew differently, we are not far apart in our paths. I certainly have my limits as to what I will do to make a great beer. Very few if any of us own a beer centrifuge, which I think could be an excellent tool to make a really delicious beer. In fact, that may be why RIPScotty can’t replicate Trappist brew, as in my reading, I’ve found that at least one of the Trappist breweries uses a centrifuge. A big part of why I like to brew is that what I’m doing isn’t far from what my great grandfathers great grandfather did. It connects me to them in time. Glycol chilled stainless steel conicals would make my beer taste worse even though it may make better beer.

My quest is for the Soul of good beer. I believe that Brülosophy is on the same quest.

For the record, I brew beers in the Trappist spirit that have many of the same hallmarks. They are my own recipes and not clones and are excellent beers in both the subjective sense (I love them) and the objective sense (others love them). I can replicate many of the qualities in those beers yet fermentation, and getting the right balance for “ape’ing” beers like Chimay, Westmalle, and Rochefort, in particular, is always tough. Tough, but not impossible. I don’t shoot for clones of those beers though. I have a stable of 4-5 recipes for Single, Dubbel, Tripel, Dark Strong, and Golden Strong. I pursue those because it’s more fun that way.

My original comment was that I find it tough to clone Chimay, Westmalle, Rochefort, etc. so that’s why I still purchase them. They are delicious and I can’t fully replicate that. I’m not complaining, however, as I love them and they are all available at my local grocery store.

Centrifuges only play a part in packaging. All it does is remove old yeast, etc. and prepare the beers to get bottling yeast at packaging. It’s not a contributor in a flavor sense.

We likely agree on certain things more than you think. I just don’t feel the need to make brewing anything more than it is: crushed grains, hot water, little buggers that eat sugar, and a whole heap of good science.

It’s not spiritual for me. I’m not trying to find the “soul” of beer or connect with the European immigrant forebears of mine. More power to you if that’s your thing, it just doesn’t resonate with me.

As far as the Bru Crew are concerned? They have to do what they have to do to make that money and support the site. I guess I can’t begrudge them for that, even if it means I don’t agree with their whole concept. Marshall and crew need to make that money and get free stuff and who the hell am I to say nay to that. Content drives clicks, clicks get endorsements and help them monetize what they are doing. More power to them I guess. Can’t hate on someone who has found a way to make money off of what they love.

I’d certainly do it if I could.

I apologize to anyone if I was antagonistic over the course of this thread. Sometimes you just get riled up. I disagree with many of you about many things. I should do better at turning that into something more constructive.
 
Last edited:
So now we're back on track I should clarify my original question better. I have nothing against brulosophy or even have any issues with there experiments and or outcome. They do there tests and report what they find. It's cool they do. The issue at hand to me is more so brewers that feel doing any of the additional steps that were found insignificant are a waste and referencing the brulosophy test as proof. Again my stance is taking 1-2 shortcuts is possibly so minute it's unnoticible to most but take 15- 20 shortcuts and it's gonna be noticible. Cheers

My biggest take away from Brulosophy is...don't blindly trust something you saw in a book, was told in a forum, or read on a Brulosophy article...try it for yourself! I don't see the primary focus of Brulosophy to be taking short cuts, but instead on trying different processes and ingredients and deciding what impact it has on your beers and your process.

I have friends that consistently produce incredible beers, and I have friends that consistently produce bad to mediocre beers (I like to think closer to the first group). I suspect the difference is not one factor (like ferm temp control, water treatments, etc.) but 20 small factors.

I guess as I think about it, it can be hard to separate out the Brulosophy experiments on "bad" practices that by themselves were not significant (using old grains, poor temp control, aeration after fermentation, etc.) vs processes that might not have the impact that was/is thought (first wort hopping, dry yeast rehydration, mash temp, etc.).
 
I love the concept. Generally they do a pretty solid job of reigns trying to eliminate variables. Their confidence level threshold is obviously up for debate.

My biggest beef had that they frequently choose recipes that would mask the differences. For example, looking at late boil hop additions vs flameout or whirlpool additions with respect to IBUs. The have a recipe with 3 oz of hops. With people routinely putting 6-8 oz of whirlpool hops in a NEIPA, their recipe isn't likely to really highlight the differences.

I've seen a number of experiments where the recipe just want likely to expose the difference you might hypothesize was there.

I'm not saying use outrageous records that are outside the range of what someone would brew, but choose recipes that are within the norm but would not mask the potential differences.
 
Ok, apologies, let me try again. Help me to understand better your thinking and thoughts about their work Rpiscotty. I like their work and find it interesting.

edit, I see you beat me to it. Thanks for sharing how you see it. That really was a thoughtful post. I am not opposed to learning more about how you think. I like those styles a lot too btw. I particularly have fallen in love with mixing red wine into an abbey.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top