Brulosophy

[Blazinlow86]

@mongoose33 I’m sure your beer is excellent. It is my opinion that making great homebrew is far easier than making great commercial beer. It is very easy for me to hold my carboy up to the light and make sure that it is extremely clean. It is a common human fault that when we find success, we find ourselves the cause of that success.

do you feel that its easier to make great homebrew vs commercial because you end up with the same end product as the pros with less processes or is it easier because your expectations are lower because its home brewed? cheers

 

[hopjuice_71]

thanks for your reply. i agree 100% about the "Would I ignore attention to *ALL* of the stuff they find insignificant at the same time - not a chance, I'm too cowardly" part and that was more so the base of the question. coincidentally i was ignoring attention to most of the things they find insignificant when i first started brewing and my beer suffered tremendously. that being said im a pretty picky drinker. theres no doubt in m mind that it all adds up at the end. i was just more curious how many others agree or disagree cheers

Ha, yeah, sorry. Guess it took me a while to get down off of my soapbox and to the point of your post. Guess my main message was a bit more general in that that faith can be as easily misplaced in other sources as it can be in Brulosophy. Question everything.

Cheers

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

do you feel that its easier to make great homebrew vs commercial because you end up with the same end product as the pros with less processes or is it easier because your expectations are lower because its home brewed? cheers

I was shocked at how good my beer was compared to commercial beer after having only brewed 4 batches. My expectations for my beer are much higher than that of commercial because I know what homebrew’s potential is. I still can’t believe what good beer I make. Even my mistakes are usually better then commercial examples, with notable exceptions (like my partygyle experiment). But even then, I learned something of value trying something new.

 

[Blazinlow86]

I was shocked at how good my beer was compared to commercial beer after having only brewed 4 batches. My expectations for my beer are much higher than that of commercial because I know what homebrew’s potential is. I still can’t believe what good beer I make. Even my mistakes are usually better then commercial examples, with notable exceptions (like my partygyle experiment). But even then, I learned something of value trying something new.

nice i wish i had the same experience as you with such minimal effort. it took me alot of effort , money , time and over 500g of beer and im still not up there with my favorite commercial stuff all the time and most definately not after only 4 batches. most of the guys in my club cant even make a 5/10 beer and some have been brewing for 10 years .cheers

 

[applescrap]

They do great work. I mean like them or not, take the findings to heart or not, the work is fun to read, well conceived and engaging. Props to Marshall and the crew for sure. Plus on their site he has all kinds of other info on hops and processes etc. Its pretty sweet.

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

I’m reading brew like a monk right now. The author who clearly enjoys Trappist beer also suggests that it isn’t some sort of magical elixir touched by angels. I think that the idea of the elixir of the Gods is a bunch of hooey and that a thousand dollar bottle of wine is no better than a 50 dollar bottle. It’s like that guy in the modern malt thread whose family has been making malt for years and makes as good or better malt than anyone out there. He says himself it’s really not that hard. Frankly, I believe him.

It’s really not that hard to make good things at home.

If your beer is worse than commercial beer:

a.) You hold well known well loved beers in higher esteem than the beer warrents.

b.) Are biased against homebrew because you aren’t a Trappist monk.

 

[dmtaylor]

My biggest criticism of Brulosophy is their arbitrary worship of the 95% confidence level, which misleads people in a BIG way. Example:

"...13 participants (P<0.05) would have had to correctly identify the cool ferment sample as being unique, while only 12 (p=0.083) were capable of doing so, meaning 14 tasters selected one of the other samples. Although close, these results suggest tasters in this xBmt were unable to reliably distinguish between pale lagers of the same recipe fermented 20˚F/11˚C apart,”

Conclusions like that one drive me up the wall. There is in fact 91.7% confidence that there might be a detectable difference between the samples, but they say there's not. Whatever.

Marshall can accept constant criticism, since meanwhile he is supported by millions, so he can choose to absorb as much or as little criticism as he wants. Celebrity status. As long as he is never accused of sexual harrassment or racism, he'll continue to be adored by the masses.

Don't get me wrong, I like Marshall a lot, he's a very decent guy. It's just... he doesn't know us from Adam, and he's bombarded, so why should we be here discussing this, why should he give a poopy at all... he doesn't have to listen.

Related recent thread on another forum:

https://www.beeradvocate.com/commun...t-rehydration-experiment.601466/#post-6364443

 

[mongoose33]

My biggest criticism of Brulosophy is their arbitrary worship of the 95% confidence level, which misleads people in a BIG way. Example:

"...13 participants (P<0.05) would have had to correctly identify the cool ferment sample as being unique, while only 12 (p=0.083) were capable of doing so, meaning 14 tasters selected one of the other samples. Although close, these results suggest tasters in this xBmt were unable to reliably distinguish between pale lagers of the same recipe fermented 20˚F/11˚C apart,”

Conclusions like that one drive me up the wall. There is in fact 91.7% confidence that there might be a detectable difference between the samples, but they say there's not. Whatever.

Marshall can accept constant criticism, since meanwhile he is supported by millions, so he can choose to absorb as much or as little criticism as he wants. Celebrity status. As long as he is never accused of sexual harrassment or racism, he'll continue to be adored by the masses.

Don't get me wrong, I like Marshall a lot, he's a very decent guy. It's just... he doesn't know us from Adam, and he's bombarded, so why should we be here discussing this, why should he give a poopy at all... he doesn't have to listen.

Related recent thread on another forum:

https://www.beeradvocate.com/commun...t-rehydration-experiment.601466/#post-6364443

Blindly serving the .05 level of significance gives the enterprise the appearance of being scientific. What gets me about that is those who "correctly" chose the odd-beer-out are then asked to decide which one is better....and that includes the ones who guessed, and simply have no idea which is different.

Can't figure out why you'd want those who couldn't tell the difference between the beers to then decide which is better.

What I also find funny about this is my objections to the panel are well-known; I don't know if they're able to perceive differences because there's no prohibition on drinking prior. In your example above, they fall one short of "significance," which makes me wonder if there had been some quality control on the tasters beforehand whether more would have detected a difference...and thus the exercise would have reached "significance."

I agree with you about .05....nothing holy about that. Well, if you attend the church of science, maybe there is.

 

[Pkrd]

I agree with you about .05....nothing holy about that. Well, if you attend the church of science, maybe there is.

I think this explains how useful 0.05 is...

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

I think this explains how useful 0.05 is...

XKCD and Saturday morning coffee: life is good!

 

[dmtaylor]

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".

 

[mongoose33]

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!

 

[dmtaylor]

Similar discussions in another current thread (which has digressed off the rails):

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/threads/opinions-on-extract-brewing.659959/page-2#post-8508539

 

[dmtaylor]

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.

 

[LostHopper]

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.

 

[ThirstyPawsHB]

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!

 

[isomerization]

Epistemology finds that experts are one of the worst sources of knowledge out there.

I’m surprised no one commented on this statement.

 

[ThirstyPawsHB]

I’m surprised no one commented on this statement.

Aren't we all experts? Then we think all other experts are wrong anyway! [emoji16]

 

[Big Monk]

I’m surprised no one commented on this statement.

It’s not a statement worth commenting on.

It’s pure hogwash.

 

[Soulshine2]

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

 

[Homergah]

To the original OP question. If all of those mistakes, shortcuts, etc, were combined into one brew session, what would be the outcome? It's been done.

And they named it Kombucha.

 

[Soulshine2]

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.

 

[Soulshine2]

To the original OP question. If all of those mistakes, shortcuts, etc, were combined into one brew session, what would be the outcome? It's been done.

And they named it Kombucha.

more like a sour ,no?

 

[CascadesBrewer]

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.

 

[hopjuice_71]

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).

 

[Big Monk]

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.

 

[isomerization]

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.

 

[isomerization]

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).

 

[Big Monk]

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...

 

[hopjuice_71]

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.