How do you think they came up with the +/- 1 from the lab? It's hard to know how much it is worth unless we know how they did it. I assumed maybe they ran one sample repeatedly on their instrument to get an idea of the variability of the instrument, and then reported that as a confidence interval? I thought it was a little odd to label it as "variance" when that has a specific meaning in stats.
Yeah, it is odd. I keep thinking about my reloading scale, which is accurate to .1 grains. That means that, as I understand it, a measured 5.1 grain load is anywhere between 5.0500001 (or thereabouts
) and 5.1499999 (or thereabouts
).
Let's just say you want to know if there IS a difference in IBUs between two beers. Is the only really valid way to do it to brew the beers several times, analyzes several samples of each beer and then do a stats test to see if there is a difference? If there is a big enough difference, say 10 IBUs vs 20 IBUs, we can say there is probably a difference right? How large should the difference be such that we wave the need for multiple analyses?
No, I don't think the only valid way to do it is to brew the beers several times....though if you want an average IBU measure then probably that would be useful.
You'd only have to compare the two beers once, if you are certain you have a homogeneous mix, and no one sample will differ from any other. Then it's a matter of the accuracy of the measurement.
I thought the test was set up so that it accounted for the fact that there were guesses? Also, what do you mean that the number of tasters who could not pick out a difference are "lost." It's just everyone who says they can't taste a difference.
No, it's not set up that way. It's just a simple Z-test. When I first saw the method I was moved to reproduce it myself, and they are doing the Z-test correctly. It operates on the assumption (the null hypothesis, if you will) that tasters are randomly choosing the correct one, and how unlikely it would be for "X" number of tasters to choose the correct one, by random chance.
As far as being "lost," what I mean is that there is some value or meaning in the fact that most tasters couldn't tell a difference. That tells me (if you can assume they represent the more normal beer drinking population, a questionable assumption) that there isn't a difference that most people can perceive. That--right there--is also important information.
The tasters doing this are beer drinkers, and predisposed to like beer--and yet, the majority can't tell the difference. Hmmmm....
OK, this is an interesting idea. It sounds like you are looking for a significant difference that is objectively true. I don't see why there's not a meaningful difference just because half prefer one and half the other. It doesn't tell you the simple answer that there is a best way to brew this beer, but it tells you that if you brew this beer with method A, you will likely be able to tell it apart from method B. Once you know which you seem to prefer, you can use that knowledge to always follow method A for example. It would seem to indicate that you are not guaranteed to brew a beer that everyone will prefer though. I see your point that the significant exBeeriments do not necessarily lead to dogma about the right way to do things though.
What I tell my students (yes, I teach this stuff, which is why it is so interesting to me that others are interested in it w/r/t beer!) is that whenever they are doing a statistical test, they should be thinking about what the different possible outcomes mean--ahead of time.
Same here--what are we trying to find out when we do exbeeriments like this? We're trying to find out if something is better--would you agree? If it's not better (i.e., the same), then we'll choose the method that's either easier, less time consuming, or less expensive. If one is better, then we'll balance time, effort, cost in deciding to choose the better one. (If a beer tastes only slightly better but costs $100 more per batch...well, I suspect most of us would brew the cheaper version.)
The problem is what it is we're trying to discern here. Why are we doing the exbeeriment, and what do we hope to learn? If I were a commercial brewery and I found out that most tasters couldn't tell the difference, but among those who purportly can, they prefer Beer A overwhelmingly to Beer B, then I'd brew Beer A--because at least a subset of all customers prefer it, and the rest have no preference.
And if in the same vein, if those who can tell a difference are split 50-50 w/r/t what they prefer, then it's a matter of what's faster, cheaper, easier.
I just brewed a batch Wednesday, and for the first time ever I just let all the trub go into the fermenter without trying to filter most of it out. There's at least one brulosophy exbeeriment testing that exact idea, and there was no significant difference. I've also seen a little anecdotal evidence suggesting the same, so I'm trying it. Anxious to see how it goes. I've got about 26 more days.
Yes, I see your point. However, I wouldn't say it's not meaningful when they get a statistically significant test. I am excited when I hear there is a difference in a process, as it means that I can use it as a tool to change my beer flavor.
We're going to have to disagree there. I haven't even delved into the issue of tasters discerning the difference. They try once; I'd like to see tasters show they can do it more than once, but that's probably a pretty difficult thing to do in terms of time and effort. We don't know how many of those who chose the right one did so because they guessed right (ergo, they can't really tell the difference but now they're in the tasting panel!), and how many truly can tell.
But as far as what "significance" means, IMO there has to be a conclusion. Just saying two beers do not taste the same tells me nothing as to which is preferable. There's no actionable intelligence there! Which is "better?"
So then we go to the next level which is how they prefer the one or the other. THAT may provide actionable intelligence. But if those who purportedly can distinguish between the beers are split 50-50 as to which they prefer, there's no actionable intelligence there either. Which should you do?
In the end, in such circumstances the answer comes down to your own palate, which means you decide what you like. I like maltier beers; others not so much. Who's right? Neither, of course. (J/K--I'm right, of course!
)
Thanks for the reply. This is an interesting topic to me, obviously!
Me too! I think this is one of the places we can learn some things about brewing--but unless there's a clear preference, I'm not sure that we've learned anything other than "it doesn't matter."
That conclusion--"It doesn't matter"--is in fact a terrific conclusion in certain instances. Dump in the trub or don't? Does it matter? If it doesn't, then I'm overturning conventional wisdom and dumping it in. The fact that people can't discern the difference suggests we have a way to make the brewing process easier. If.