I feel like I want to produce a long and complicated answer to this....in part, because I believe when we confront new ideas like this, deciding what is "true" can be very difficult. And it is very much so with this.
But I'll try to keep it short. Some of this is me trying to organize my ideas and see what others think of them.
I'm trained as a scientist. I'd like to think I'm a pretty good one. If you really understand science, you understand the need to eliminate alternative explanations of events you're trying to explain. Almost all occupations that involve judgment must confront this. Educator: why can't Johnny read? Police Detective: who committed the crime? Engineer: Why did the bridge collapse? In each case, there are multiple "theories" that could explain the results, and the task is to eliminate ones that don't work. Educator: does Johnny have vision problems? No? Must be something else. Detective: suspect "A" has an ironclad alibi; must be someone else. Engineer: wind load? It wasn't windy at the time. Must be something else.
So the name of the game is to isolate the cause and tie it to the effect.
I think it's especially difficult to do this in beer unless you have a pretty decent setup--not impossible, but difficult. To assess changes in outcome--flavors!--you have to isolate the changes in process that you think you're tying to the change in outcome. I won't go into this as I'm certain you could supply them yourself.
So let's assume, though, that the process is ironclad. Then you get to assessing the outcome, i.e., how the beer tastes. I'm increasingly appreciative of how difficult that is, at some objective level, because we're using human beings as testers whose tasting may or may not be objective or even reproducible.
BTW, I'm not a fan of triangle tests unless there are some preconditions, including those who are just guessing--and through luck get it right--don't assess the differences in flavors. I also object to no controlling what people were eating or drinking just prior to testing, I don't know to whom the samples generalize, and typically the sample sizes are small. And even then, I think the results are misstated such as when people say, if a significant number of tasters can isolate the odd-one-out, that the sample can reliably identify the different beer. Well, some tasters did it ONCE, most tasters typically got it wrong, and nowhere is there a duplicate of the test to see if tasters truly, over perhaps a period of days, produce the same outcome. Not my definition of reliability.
But I digress.
When it comes to tasting the difference, am I a reliable taster? I don't have a great palate. I have a friend who can pick out flavors others can't, and I rely on him to tell me if there are off-flavors in my beer. Take an effect like oxidation. Is it there? Can I tell? If i can't tell any difference, is it that there is no difference, or just that my measuring instrument--my palate--just isn't discriminating enough?
So with comparing lodo versus no lodo, or abbreviated lodo with BIAB versus full bore lodo, what does a "tastes the same to me" result mean? That they are the same? Or that I simply can't taste the difference whereas you, having a better palate, can pick out differences?
This is partly why I've been so focused on process--I have to feel comfortable that the process is nailed down, otherwise I have a huge alternative explanation for the results.
**********
Some of this for me seems truly existential. What does it mean to produce "great" beer? How can one tell? What indicators should be used? In the HOPS book, the author notes there some people who can't perceive certain hop flavors. What if people tasting it can't tell it has flaws? Does that matter? How many people need to taste it to gain confidence in the beer?
I've come back to what I think a lot of brewers do: they brew for their own tastes first. I want to brew beer *I* want to drink, and it's tuned to what I like. But I'd also love to know I've nailed the process and recipe, and for that I need other people.
I'm going to start entering my beers in some competitions, see what happens. Won a small comp here with my Pilsner brewed with lodo techniques. My friend with the great palate thinks it's fabulous. Irony, that: Pilsners aren't near the top of my personal list but if it's really, really good, should I brew it for others?
And even then....how much of like/dislike of a beer is style? I don't care for Belgians. That flavor the yeast produces? No thank you. But I can actually taste one and assess it, even though I don't like it. So if someone doesn't like my beer, is it bad, or is it that like me with Belgians, they just don't care for the style?
I'm using one of the most simple measures of "quality:" do people have a second one? Anybody can, and does, lie about a beer when asked about whether it's good or they like it. But to me, the best measure is this: do they have another?
So when people have a second, and a third, and there are other options available, to me that's the best sign the beer is good, apart from what I think of it.
Very long, I know. So much for keeping it short. Imagine if I had not limited myself!
YMMV. Comments as always welcome.
