Do "professional" brewers consider brulosophy to be a load of bs?

[applescrap]

This thread needs, more cowbell!

Ot- clearly there are some brilliant minds and homebrewers here that would be capable of(understated) holding down the brewing job at a brewery. One problem, I think it would be a pay cut for too many.

 

[cmac62]

The problem is the tests are useless. They make lazy assumptions, there's no justifications or reasoning for any of their experimental designs, they have multiple variables they don't control for and there's no actual data collected. They hide behind the taste testing because it allows them to provide "scientific" results without any actual results.

They're the kardashians of science, all show and no substance. A picture of a thermometer and scientific jargon they don't understand themselves doesn't validate the results. Maybe some people see that and think "wow they went through a lot and everything is measured so carefully" but there's really no scientific thought process in any of it, and it's presented with a certain air of snake oil salesmanship. Just read his response below, someone questions ester production his answer is "I've been drinking lager for 10 years and I cant taster esters" That's a salesman answer, not a scientific answer.

Man is this hostile. Dang, Brewlosophy is some guys experimenting with beer in their garage. I'm sure they are controlling what they can, but anyone who thinks this can be done with scientific rigor is delusional. I have only perused a few of the experiments. This is mainly because using my process I have made some great beers and all my beers are, well, beer. I drink them weather I think they are great, okay, or bordering on swill (these I share with my LHBC lol).

I really don't understand all of the hostility. Beer is not rocket science, although there is a great deal of science stuff that can be used/appreciated, brewing beer for me is an art. I believe the brewlosophy crew are having a good time, brewing beer and asking interesting questions. And, the few articles I have read made me think. I believe this is a good thing. Make beer not war :fro:

 

[mongoose33]

I never said anything was perfect. I'm sure Brulosopher would agree. I like the fact that he puts in the effort testing questionable practices. Like I said if it can be improved and you know a better way then have at. Spend the time and effort for OUR benefit and post your results...otherwise....

Why not either just accept it for what it is or ignore it completely? You're asking for it to be the way you want it to be and neither Brulosophy or Experimental Brewing is interested in doing things that way.

I'm really rather surprised by this.

So the best practice here should be for those who identify significant flaws in the process....to be quiet?

Really? Seriously?

So you're OK with a flawed model because....you like it that way. I would have thought, Denny, after having bought and read some of your books, that you'd really be about finding the truth, not silencing dissent.

This is a FORUM. It's supposed to be--or maybe I'm wrong on this--a place where ideas come into conflict and we try to determine which ideas are the best. Trying to get people to stop pointing out the flaws suggests not a search for the truth, but a demand that we accept authority.

I don't think you should be trying to squelch reasoned and informed commentary on these issues. If your approaches have issues--and they do--then the better response might be to try to address those issues, rather than eliminate criticism.

Wouldn't you agree?

 

[passedpawn]

I'm really rather surprised by this.

So the best practice here should be for those who identify significant flaws in the process....to be quiet?

Really? Seriously?

So you're OK with a flawed model because....you like it that way. I would have thought, Denny, after having bought and read some of your books, that you'd really be about finding the truth, not silencing dissent.

This is a FORUM. It's supposed to be--or maybe I'm wrong on this--a place where ideas come into conflict and we try to determine which ideas are the best. Trying to get people to stop pointing out the flaws suggests not a search for the truth, but a demand that we accept authority.

I don't think you should be trying to squelch reasoned and informed commentary on these issues. If your approaches have issues--and they do--then the better response might be to try to address those issues, rather than eliminate criticism.

Wouldn't you agree?

Denny's opinion here is as good as yours, and you'd do well considering your own advice. Try posting on the topic, and not critiquing other's.

 

[jtratcliff]

I don't know... The OP asked whether Pro brewers found the Brulosophy X-beer-iments to be BS...

In my opinion, who cares what the pro brewers think of Marshall's (or Denny's) experiments. Pro brewers aren't the audience. Homebrewers are. Pro brewers can pay for their own experiments.

What matters to the homebrewer is whether or not this or that process change makes a noticeable difference to a *homebrewed* beer...

I'm a scientist by profession... Though not a chemist, or a statistician, or a food scientist, or a brewing scientist.... I like Marshall's exbeeriments... Do I take them as gospel? No... Will I try a warm lager with 34/70 because of Marshall's results? Absolutely.

I totally respect the perspective of "it's not rigorous enough" or "it could be better"... AJ's comments about the triangle test make sense to me and if Marshall and/or Denny want to be more rigorous, they can take those constructive criticisms into account. But it's not easy to assemble a proper panel and total rigor isn't their goal.

But even if they don't change, I find value (if only anecdotal) in what they do.

They don't claim anything beyond what they try (even if the p values aren't as useful as they could be). Would it make a difference if they didn't report them? And just try to be totally anecdotal?

I don't have the motivation, time, energy, capacity to perform some of the side by side comparisons they do. And if I did, outside of a lab environment, I'm not sure I'd do anything differently from what they do. They trying what anyone could try in their backyard.

Theses dudes aren't trained as scientists and they are trying to practice the scientific method. Kudos to them. Do they fall short? Maybe.. But they're not (to my knowledge) denying climate change, the moon landing, or whether the Earth is an ellipsoid... They should be encouraged.

Could they do better? sure... So could I in my daily scientific endeavors...

Doesn't render what they do to be without value to the homebrewer.... regardless of what pro brewers think.

My $0.02...

 

[passedpawn]

I'm a little surprised at our forum. I'd think we would appreciate a brewing blog that tried to study stuff, even given it's lack of scientific rigor. Shame.

 

[joshesmusica]

What?!? He's (we're) basically being told to shut up about his (our) opinion *on the very topic of this thread.* Denny has constantly had off-topic posts about his own experiments and website, which this thread is about brulosophy specifically. Then when someone questions why we should just keep quiet about our qualms with the way brulosophy presents their information in a thread about brulosophy, he gets told that he's posting off-topic (which he's not) and that the opinion that "we should just not discuss such matters on a thread on a forum about discussing homebrewing and all topics therein" is just as good as his? His opinion isn't that brulosophy and other experimenters should shut up and just stop experimenting. His opinion (like many on this thread) is that there are some major issues with the "science" behind these experiments. Many have offered very easy solutions in order to address these concerns and make the results more authentic. And all Denny's said throughout this thread (with his often defensive, off-topic posts) is that we should just accept them for what they are and move on. He's only responded to these defensive, off-topic posts with the fact that he shouldn't be trying to silence dissenters, because that's disingenuous, and goes completely against what these well-known experimenters are supposedly for. Not sure what of his own advice he's supposed to be following, nor why his post was any more off topic than nearly all of Denny's posts in this thread.

 

[joshesmusica]

I'm a little surprised at our forum. I'd think we would appreciate a brewing blog that tried to study stuff, even given it's lack of scientific rigor. Shame.

Not exactly sure what you're surprised about here. You're a mod. You of all people should know just how often brulosophy is quoted in order to justify poor brewing habits. It's done all the time all over this forum.

Sure in this particular thread that the topic is specifically about brulosophy and their merits to professionals, then the professionals are going to come out and give their opinions.

I'm personally quite surprised that anybody's opinion on any topic, let alone opinions that are *on topic* to this particular thread, are essentially attempted at being silenced.

 

[bob1852]

I'm a little surprised at our forum. I'd think we would appreciate a brewing blog that tried to study stuff, even given it's lack of scientific rigor. Shame.

Ya new here?

Do you remember the threads when people would argue with other posters and say stuff "well, Jamil said...." or "well, Schramm said...." not realizing they were arguing with Jamil and Ken. There was also an instance of someone arguing with Denny about how hw was wrong about a famous the recipe before someone chimmed in with "do you know that's Denny's recipe..."

Face it, people like to argue, especially on the internet. And people in general are doubtful of science.....sadly.

 

[bob1852]

Not exactly sure what you're surprised about here. You're a mod. You of all people should know just how often brulosophy is quoted in order to justify poor brewing habits. It's done all the time all over this forum.

Lol. There's 10,000x more posts justifying poor brewing habits under the guise of "it worked for me!!!"

Brulosophy > "it worked for me"

 

[joshesmusica]

Lol. There's 10,000x more posts justifying poor brewing habits under the guise of "it worked for me!!!"

Brulosophy > "it worked for me"

Wholeheartedly agree. And I've already mentioned a few times how much I respect brulosophy and marshall, fully appreciate what they're doing, and have read literally every single exbeeriment. Hell, I've even brewed some of Marshall's recipes on occasion.

What I find odd is how defensive Denny is being about his experiments, when this thread isn't even about him. And now in his last couple of posts, he's basically come out and said, "if you don't appreciate what we're doing, then shut up and move on." At least, that's the way it's being construed.

And then even more odd is to see a mod come on here in defense of denny and tell a guy that he's being off topic in a reply to an off-topic post from denny.

 

[dmtaylor]

This thread has become like the Energizer bunny.... just keep pounding away BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG, saying the same old **** over and over and over...

 

[daveMN]

Lol. There's 10,000x more posts justifying poor brewing habits under the guise of "it worked for me!!!"

Brulosophy > "it worked for me"

It's likely pro brewers are getting their info from Seibel or UC Davis, MBAA, ASBC, etc. What does a homebrewing blog like Brulosophy factor into it? Probably not a whole lot.
This forum is a lot of fun, but far from peer-reviewed research, other than as homebrewing peers we offer up what's worked for each of us. The stats criticism is a nice diversion from the noob posts wondering how his/her batch got infected. But let's not get our undies in a bunch.
I just finished watching the Good Eats episode where he covers homebrewing. If you want an example of bad advice, watch that then read a Brulosophy post and realize Brulosophy has at least good homebrewing technique. They aren't making dumpers. That Good Eats batch would've been a dumper for sure with his bleach sanitizer and pitching at 87 F.
Charlie's mash tun was a bucket with a ton of holes in the bottom. Remember that Denny championed batch sparging and made lautering a whole lot easier. We've come a long way from an illegal hobby in the 70's to get to a criticism of the number of people needed to have a statistically significant triangle test.
Time to go RDWHAHB. :beer:

 

[bob1852]

It's likely pro brewers are getting their info from Seibel or UC Davis, MBAA, ASBC, etc. What does a homebrewing blog like Brulosophy factor into it? Probably not a whole lot.

"Probably not a whole lot" is much different than "a load of B.S." (thread title).

 

[Qhrumphf]

This thread has become like the Energizer bunny.... just keep pounding away BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG, saying the same old **** over and over and over...

Nail. Head.

There are a few outlier positions of either "everything they publish is incontrovertible fact and they prove everyone else wrong" or "they're ****s and awful at what they do and it's all crap".

Everyone else seems to agree that it's valid work, worth discussion, however it's not perfect and should be taken with a grain of salt.

The rest is a discussion on how to address the flaws. Whether or not Denny or Marshall want to do that, or have the capacity, isn't really the point.

And then it's all just shouting past each other while saying mostly the same thing.

 

[MaryB]

They are homebrewers doing homebrew level experiments! How many have entered a beer contest? The tasters are not professionals, they are other homebrewers who passed the test of what to look for.

 

[Brulosopher]

Says the man who has a Helles "clone" kit with Kolsch yeast.





Also for the record, I am a professional and I do consider Brulopshy B.S.

You have no clue how much I’d love to get your “professional” palate involved in some of these tastings. Might humble you a bit.

 

[dmtaylor]

You have no clue how much I’d love to get your “professional” palate involved in some of these tastings. Might humble you a bit.

Heh heh... somehow I doubt it!

 

[Lefou]

Haha, you might be the only person here who doesn't know that Denny was cowbell guy with Blue Oyster Cult. :rockin:

Make that two guys.
Cowbell is under-rated. The cowbell work on Nazareth's "Hair of the Dog"...
Best. Cowbell. Ever. :rockin:

Cowbell doesn't have to be arranged like Mozart, but if you like it that way, fine.

 

[Denny]

Man, you sure are doing A LOT of self-advertisement for your site when the discussion isn't even about that...



And more defensive posts. I mean, sure, if you guys are just fine with imperfect results that people SHOULD be ignoring. Then ok.

But most of the people are simply saying things could be done better. And it's not like it would be difficult to make the results actually better. So why not want to improve? Why are you apparently so against that while you continue to advertise your site?

It's not advertising. We do the same thing as Brulosophy so it's relevant to the discussion.

 

[Denny]

I'm really rather surprised by this.

So the best practice here should be for those who identify significant flaws in the process....to be quiet?

Really? Seriously?

So you're OK with a flawed model because....you like it that way. I would have thought, Denny, after having bought and read some of your books, that you'd really be about finding the truth, not silencing dissent.

This is a FORUM. It's supposed to be--or maybe I'm wrong on this--a place where ideas come into conflict and we try to determine which ideas are the best. Trying to get people to stop pointing out the flaws suggests not a search for the truth, but a demand that we accept authority.

I don't think you should be trying to squelch reasoned and informed commentary on these issues. If your approaches have issues--and they do--then the better response might be to try to address those issues, rather than eliminate criticism.

Wouldn't you agree?

I have a hard time understanding why it seems like silencing dissent. You're free to disagree with anything. But id you disagree with something we're not trying to do, it seems kind of pointless to me. After all, this is homebrewing, not a cure for cancer.

 

[eric19312]

It's not advertising. We do the same thing as Brulosophy so it's relevant to the discussion.

All due respect Denny I'm a big fan and really like your podcast but that brew tan B exbeeriment made me want to throw my phone out the window.

 

[Denny]

All due respect Denny I'm a big fan and really like your podcast but that brew tan B exbeeriment made me want to throw my phone out the window.

Yep, we recognize that. We'll soon be releasing the results of an aging experiment with Brewtan B and hopefully you'll find it better.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I'm about to undertake an experiment of my own. I'm going to lager a nominal Bohemian Pilsner recipe for one month at 34 degrees atop the yeast cake in the primary. But sadly I will not have the benefit of a side by side brewed batch to rack prior to otherwise identical lagering for comparison, but rather I will only have my own memories and taste buds to go on. Not quite up to Brulosophy standards, but hopefully I'll be able to please myself.

 

[Die_Beerery]

The problem is the tests are useless. They make lazy assumptions, there's no justifications or reasoning for any of their experimental designs, they have multiple variables they don't control for and there's no actual data collected. They hide behind the taste testing because it allows them to provide "scientific" results without any actual results.



They're the kardashians of science, all show and no substance. A picture of a thermometer and scientific jargon they don't understand themselves doesn't validate the results. Maybe some people see that and think "wow they went through a lot and everything is measured so carefully" but there's really no scientific thought process in any of it, and it's presented with a certain air of snake oil salesmanship. Just read his response below, someone questions ester production his answer is "I've been drinking lager for 10 years and I cant taster esters" That's a salesman answer, not a scientific answer.

Omg. Amen brother. Not to mention sponsor links and whatnot everywhere.

 

[Die_Beerery]

Also, not all pro brewers are god's gift to beer, there are quite a few homebrewers that I bet would brew circles around some so called "pros"

Oh, absolutely. I totally agree. As like many other trades to become a “professional” usually a simple few hoops need to be jumped though for a title. In the case of a brewer you could literally never have brewed a batch of beer in your life, but simply fill out paperwork and convince some investors. If you polled the majority of professional brewers out there today I would wager to guess a very little % have any kind of schooling involved. It’s usually quite easy to pick out who has that kind of experience if you go to any one of the 50 micros within a 20 miles radius of your house.
That’s not to say people can’t kill it with not schooling, but it’s rare. Micros are popping up at a dime a dozen rate around me and of the some 25 near to me, 1 makes beer that I can honestly say is good. Go figure, they paid for a son of the owners to go to school and then do an internship overseas. The new trend around here is to open a brewery without even having a brewer, then start asking homebrewers if they want to brew. Once this bubble bursts, there is going to be a surplus of used Brewing equipment. We are starting to see it here, people folding because the nostalgia of having a local brewery wears off when the beer is horrible.

 

[eric19312]

Honestly I don’t get the Lodo crowd, every time one of us skeptics question the mantra things escalate. I’m guessing it was Brulosophy’s initial failure to verify Lodo works that set your opinion on the quality of their science. I’m not saying Lodo doesn’t work...just noticing it tends to get introduced into many threads these days with almost a religious passion.

Actually I’m pretty curious and spend quite a bit of time in Minnesota... Where do you brew Beerery? I’d seriously like to try your lager.

Also kudos for stating your position. I think you are one of only 2 or 3 pros that bothered to comment.

 

[schematix]

The low oxygen experiment was perhaps the greatest example of shoddy work.

Someone really screwed the pooch on the mash and even with an obnoxiously large difference in OG between the two samples, still went ahead with a taste panel. And as usual, came to a questionable conclusion.

There’s a better conclusion to draw from an experiment like that...

 

[Bilsch]

I for one would love to see a Brulosophy vs Beerery cage match/brewing session. But seriously maybe it could settle some long standing questions over a beer or three.

 

[Die_Beerery]

I for one would love to see a Brulosophy vs Beerery cage match/brewing session. But seriously maybe it could settle some long standing questions over a beer or three.

Funny you say that. A year or so back( maybe 2 now) a free plane ride to my house and a brew session was offered, to see what it was all about. It was declined.
More recently I then put an open invitation on the aha to anyone going to the HBC here in Minneapolis to stop by and see what it was all about. I had exactly zero takers.
I put my money where my mouth was but.....