Re: Beer experiment philosophy – is your Control my Control?
Posted: Sat May 06, 2017 12:35 pm
+1 on Tech's comments
I have done a very thorough review of the Scientific (capital S) literature on HSA, and my observations are similar to what Tech describes, the methods part of their papers is not very good, and most of these papers would have been rejected in other scientific areas on methods alone.
@ Caedus - nice meeting you
I do not think one can make a distinction between capital S Science vs lowcaps science. There is no such a thing (to me). We cannot make antimatter at home, but it is not beyond us to brew very good beer, which is the media in which we test our experiments; and I do think that blog-posts can be considered science, if they follow science rules.
I was not referring to Brulosophy itself (or the IGOR program), but I wish for homebrewers to realize that if they wand to test a hypothesis, they have much better odds if they follow some simple rules (see signal to noise ratio comments) ; and many Brulosophy experiments do not help in this regard, inasmuch as many times they do not critically choose the best style for their experiment (minimize noise) nor they do not assess whether the control beer is a good representation of the style (minimize noise); among other things. Also, if you have done research, you know that sometimes you mess up; if you mess up, just do it again, do not proceed to tasting, and do not publish it. On the other hand, some Brulosophy material is very good; the first Brulosophy podcast on kettle trub has an excellent literature review by Malcolm Frazer.
I have done a very thorough review of the Scientific (capital S) literature on HSA, and my observations are similar to what Tech describes, the methods part of their papers is not very good, and most of these papers would have been rejected in other scientific areas on methods alone.
@ Caedus - nice meeting you
I do not think one can make a distinction between capital S Science vs lowcaps science. There is no such a thing (to me). We cannot make antimatter at home, but it is not beyond us to brew very good beer, which is the media in which we test our experiments; and I do think that blog-posts can be considered science, if they follow science rules.
I was not referring to Brulosophy itself (or the IGOR program), but I wish for homebrewers to realize that if they wand to test a hypothesis, they have much better odds if they follow some simple rules (see signal to noise ratio comments) ; and many Brulosophy experiments do not help in this regard, inasmuch as many times they do not critically choose the best style for their experiment (minimize noise) nor they do not assess whether the control beer is a good representation of the style (minimize noise); among other things. Also, if you have done research, you know that sometimes you mess up; if you mess up, just do it again, do not proceed to tasting, and do not publish it. On the other hand, some Brulosophy material is very good; the first Brulosophy podcast on kettle trub has an excellent literature review by Malcolm Frazer.