Author: Marshall Schott w/ Josh Weikert
I occasionally get asked where the name for this site came from, not so much the Brü- as the -losophy part. It’s really just a play on the online moniker I adopted a few years ago, Brülosopher, which I haphazardly settled on due to its allusion to two things I spend a lot of time thinking about: brewing and philosophy. During graduate school, I delved into the worlds of many of history’s incredible thinkers, ultimately coming to value the writings of the great existentialists, those who incessantly questioned “reality,” acknowledging the absurdity of the human condition and how the incongruous experience of feeling larger than life despite knowing an endpoint exists drives the whole of human thought, behavior, and creativity. As trivial as making beer is in the grand scheme of things, it became my outlet for critically thinking about and testing ideas many held as truth. Based on communications I’ve had with brewers, it seems many these days are less interested in blindly accepting the conventional wisdom offered by those in authority, rather seeking new ideas and novel perspectives.
However, some brewers continue to stick heartily to convention, which alone is respectable, but can become slightly annoying when they rip others apart for thinking differently. From beliefs regarding what makes a “real” lager to convictions about regional naming conventions, dogma is alive and well in the brewing world.
I recently came across a website that more or less shares this mentality, the Beer: Simple Blog, where Josh Weikert shares his thoughts on beer and brewing in an honest and humorous way. Earlier this week, Josh published an article that struck a chord with me on a topic Ray addressed in last year’s Dogma Is A Funny Thing. Relevant and admittedly personally validating, I did something new by asking Josh if he’d be cool with me sharing his article, not only because I think it’s a fantastic read, but to introduce more folks to his great work. I trust it will resonate with others the same way it did me. Here you go.
Dogmatic Brewing
(or, What Rudyard Kipling Can Teach Us About Beer)
By Josh Weikert of Beer-Simple.com
Dogma (n.): a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted.
That’s the Merriam-Webster definition of “dogma,” and I never realized how much we run into this as brewers – until I started offering brewing advice to brewers. We’re a pretty dogmatic 
bunch, it turns out. Which sucks, because “Dogmatic Brewing” sounds like a pretty cool name for a brewery…
Since I started writing Beer Simple, I’ve offered in the Brewing posts a number of recommendations, suggestions, and commentaries on brewing. Not that I expect that every one is a gem that needs to be adopted – far from it, in fact. Brew your own way. I heartily and happily acknowledge that I’m not a biologist, chemist, professional brewer, or metallurgist. I like to think I’m just the friendly neighbor, chatting over the fence. “Say, Bob, you ever think about putting that sprinkler on a timer? Works well for me.” Like that.
But often, the response isn’t just that someone isn’t interested in the advice (which is perfectly fine, of course – your beer, your rules!). It’s that what I’m saying simply can’t be right. But why not? Shouldn’t the proof be in the Pilsner, so to speak?
DOGMATIC BREWING
I’m sure it’s not just me that runs into this stuff. We all do, don’t we? When talking methods, or ingredients, or tools and tips and tricks? Every brewer has their process and their habits, and even though someone tells you that it isn’t strictly necessary to turn around three times and spit before adding your flameout hops, you just always have done it, so you don’t necessarily want to change.
I get that. That’s fine. We’re all a little idiosyncratic that way – otherwise, we’d have a more “normal” hobby.
But even though we all have our own process, I’m certainly not hostile to those who suggest that there’s a better way. I might decline to adopt their idea, but I’m not going to aggressively deny its validity. And yet that seems to happen frequently, when I share something from my brewing process. Not just that they prefer not to change – but that I’m wrong for even suggesting it. To take a recent example (my OneStep addiction), you’d think based on a lot of the comments made that I’m running a mineral-caked shitpile of a brewery that produces nothing but rancid and infected beers since – as we all know – it’s IMPOSSIBLE for a product to clean and sanitize. And yet there’s my equipment: no more calcified than anyone’s. And there’s my beer: hundreds of batches without a single infection. We “all know” it can’t work. But it does. That’s a contradiction we need to reconcile.
That’s the issue, really: that “we all know it” mentality. Remember in Men in Black when Tommy Lee Jones’ character talks like that? He mentions lots of mistaken beliefs from our past that we all just “knew” to be accurate, and then asks, “I wonder what we’ll know tomorrow.” I’ve always liked that. It reminds us that we should be critical of our stereotypes – that persistence or pervasiveness of a belief shouldn’t be sufficient to justify that belief. Empirical verification should be our goal. That truth isn’t arrived at by majority vote.
So why the resistance to new or heterodox or unusual ideas when there’s support for their validity? Answer: we’re prone to dogmatism. And we shouldn’t be. It’s a very bad habit to get into, and it’s limiting us as a homebrewing community. As Winston said, “To improve is to change – to perfect is to change often.” I’m always happy to hear brewing advice. If I think it’ll make my brewing day shorter, easier, or better, I’ll give it a try.
ACORNS AND LIONS
And I’m not talking about adding things to the process. That’s getting us into a whole level of cause-and-effect that I’m not set up to test for (but please go see the good work over at Brülosophy!). No, I’m talking about taking away – getting the leanest, neatest, SIMPLEST, most-parsimonious brewing process I can. If I tell you that adding hops in five additions is the only way to get great hop aroma, then I understand if you doubt me – after all, maybe it’s only one of those five that really creates that great hop aroma. But if someone tells you that they only ever add hops in the whirlpool, and that their beers win GABF medals for hop-forward styles, then you might consider taking that under advisement.
It’s like the old story about the Englishman who scattered acorns everywhere he went. When asked why he did it, he informed his questioners that it was “to keep the lions away.” “You fool,” they said, “there aren’t any lions in the whole of the British Isles.” “GOOD GOD,” the man yelled, “it works even better than I thought!” So I understand skepticism if, for example, I tell you that I add a quarter teaspoon of baking soda to dark beer mashes to improve the roundness of my malt flavors – maybe they’d be nice and round without it .
But if I tell you (as I did) that you can use OneStep alone to clean and sanitize without fear of infection, the only reasons to doubt me would be if (a) I’ve only brewed a few beers, some of which got infected, or (b) I live in a bacteria-and-wild-yeast-free house. If neither of those things are true (they’re not), then aggressive denial of the factual basis of my claim seems to be unwarranted. But that’s just what happened: in at least a dozen places, I was told that what I was suggesting simply couldn’t work.
But it has. Or I’m a pathological liar.
I’m not, though. I’m not advocating the spreading of acorns. Addition by subtraction – finding out what practices may not be essential or unavoidable, through multiple assessments of repeated trials – is incredibly valuable, but we throw that away when we reject advice on principle rather than on merit. Don’t be that guy. Or rather, don’t be this guy…
MR. BEER’S ESTABLISHED ELDER
You all remember my friend Mr. Beer, right? Turns out he has at least one friend who’s something of a bigwig in the brewing industry.
I was already planning on writing about brewing dogma this week anyway, but then something so perfectly-timed happened that I couldn’t believe it: I was accosted this week by someone who was straight up offended by my questioning of brewing dogma. I was perusing my mostly-beer-and-politics Facebook feed and doing the usual commenting, liking, and sharing that that entails.
I ran across a comment that wondered why beer enthusiasts don’t seem to be all that enthused about lagers (at least according to the RateBeer rankings). One of the respondents thought that it might be because RateBeer users prefer intense beers which, “by and large, lagers aren’t.” As someone who brews a lot of lagers, that caught my eye. Sure, there are lots of light-ish
and boring-ish lagers, especially as a percentage of beers on offer in the marketplace, but I wasn’t convinced that it was lagers per se that lacked intensity, but rather the kinds of lagers that tended to be brewed. So, in the spirit of social media, I made what I thought was a conversational observation.
I said I wasn’t sure about the idea that lagers are just inherently not-intense. Maybe it’s just that there are fewer lager styles, and thus a smaller proportion that tend to be “intense” – but maybe the same proportion of lager styles fall into the “intense” category as Ale styles. And after all, with the possible exception of some Belgian styles, it isn’t the yeast family per se that makes a beer intense – it’s ABV, IBUs, etc. Sure, you get Imperial IPA and huge stouts in Ales, but we Lager folk have Baltic Porter and Eisbock, and some others that could be considered “intense,” and since they’re part of a smaller subset…
You’d have thought I questioned the notion that the Earth orbits the sun. What followed was an impressive display of dogmatic reasoning. No evidence, no empirical support – just the repeated assertion by this person that everyone knows that lagers aren’t intense, and a litany of ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, and other logical fallacies. First there was name dropping of this individual’s relationship to a Prestigious Brewing Institution. Then it was reference to his/her frequent judging visits to a Prestigious Brewing Competition. Then it was that I was clearly the only person who believed my claptrap. But here’s the thing: at no time did this individual actually provide any support for his/her position. And I wasn’t even saying that I was right – just that I wasn’t sure, and maybe there was something to investigate. But that was enough to have my sanity, sincerity, intelligence, unrelated professional acumen, and beer knowledge not just questioned, but outright ridiculed.
This was someone who should know better. As he/she repeatedly referenced, this was someone who contributes to a prestigious brewing institution, is a professional brewer, and judges at prestigious brewing competitions. How dare I, someone of no beer standing, question something that “every brewing scientist and a majority of beer bloggers knows.” On the strength of what evidence did “all beer scientists” know this? None, none whatsoever. In fact, this person refused to even engage on the limited evidence that I offered.
And let’s not forget: I wasn’t staking out a position here. I was just suggesting that there might be something worth considering. But for doing so, I was a target for ridicule, passive aggression, and belittlement.
In other words: classic alehole behavior.
A PLEA FOR REASON
And so, I ask this – and not for my sake, but for others and your own, and I hope it doesn’t sound too preachy:
Don’t be that person. Don’t be dogmatic. Look for evidence, and empirical support, and opportunities to learn and evolve.
Don’t swallow every single suggestion or recommendation you hear (because God knows there’s a lot of bad advice out there), but don’t be hostile to people and their ideas, either. As the poem says,
“If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming you for it, then you can trust yourself when all others doubt you.”
True – you can trust yourself. You’re a competent brewer. However, Mr. Kipling warns us in the very next line:
“BUT MAKE ALLOWANCE FOR THEIR DOUBTING, TOO.”
In other words, embrace the openness that brought you into craft beer and homebrewing in the first place. Be willing to be wrong, and to be right if you think that others are wrong.
Be kind. Be considerate. Be the kind of people other people think beer people are.
If we aren’t, then we’re driving new beer people away and undermining our own brewing success. It’s just not worth it.
Keep it simple.
Josh Weikert is a university lecturer and writer who has contributed to Brew Your Own magazine and blogs at Beer: Simple. He began 
Support Brülosophy In Style!
All designs are available in various colors and sizes on Amazon!
Follow Brülosophy on:
FACEBOOK | TWITTER | INSTAGRAM
| Read More |
18 Ideas to Help Simplify Your Brew Day
7 Considerations for Making Better Homebrew
List of completed exBEERiments
How-to: Harvest yeast from starters
How-to: Make a lager in less than a month
| Good Deals |
Brand New 5 gallon ball lock kegs discounted to $75 at Adventures in Homebrewing
ThermoWorks Super-Fast Pocket Thermometer On Sale for $19 – $10 discount
Sale and Clearance Items at MoreBeer.com
If you enjoy this stuff and feel compelled to support Brulosophy.com, please check out the Support Us page for details on how you can very easily do so. Thanks!
29 thoughts on “Acorns & Lions | A Brewer’s Perspective On Dogmatic Brewing”
I used OneStep for years to clean and sanitize and I never had an infection.
I think people get dogmatic because they become emotionally attached to their way of doing things, so if you question that in any way they see it as a personal attack, hence the ad hominem rejoinders.
What’s interesting to me is I’ve noticed the most dogmatic are those who have little experience trying anything outside of their beliefs.
I think some people also find sheer joy in telling other people that they’re wrong and stupid. And it’s far easier to do that over the internet than straight to someones face.
I used One-Step for years to sanitize my bottles, and had periodic low-grade infections that caused the beer to slowly go tart and cidery in the bottles (I don’t keg). Slowly means over two months, roughly. So I thought, hell, I’m a microbiologist (I am), and I should know better- One-Step simply generates hydrogen peroxide, which is a pretty lousy microbicide. I switched to no-rinse iodophor for all sanitizing steps, and this improved my outcomes a lot. And now I see that others manage to use One-Step successfully anyway! I have to admit, though, that later I also made another change- I suspected I wasn’t discarding plastic items soon enough, before they were contaminated, so now my brew kettle is my bottling bucket, and my tubing is silicone that can be boiled. I’ve had nary a problem since then.
Wonderful article. I do want to bring up something that I’m seeing more and more in homebrewing circles nowadays. There seems to be a growing tide of people who are pushing what I would call a “reverse-dogma” (for lack of a better term): “Brulosopher tested that and the results weren’t significant so you’re stupid for wasting your time doing it.”
This isn’t a criticism of you or your site since if you actually READ your posts you caution against this very thing in every exBEERiment you post.
I’ve noticed this too and try to address it whenever I do.
To your credit, from what I’ve seen you absolutely do counter this wherever you can and do everything I think you could to stem this tide. Unfortunately, the tendency to cling to dogma is so strong that the new-school things we are learning sometimes turn into dogma themselves.
This is unfortunate since all I see from you is an emphasis on evidence, data, and sound (or as sound as it can be) experimentation. The work you guys are doing is truly the embodiment of Adam Savage’s quote: “The difference between screwing around and science is writing things down.”
Quite true all of it, and thanks for a civil undertaking. Innovation often leads to doubt and insult.
I think the dogmatism thing is largely a matter of trying to expedite the learning curve. We all soon learn by varying degrees that we are attempting to master something with centuries of trial and error previous to our endeavors. It becomes necessary to weed through the conjecture, find our sources of trustworthy information and ultimately stand at the forefront of whatever the modern thinking is. Otherwise we can never make our own mark. False of course, but easier than constantly testing and admitting that we are only a tiny fragment in the continuum and that we will never, “get it right”.
Usually those who shout the loudest have the least to say. It makes for an easy filtering method when looking for those sources of trustworthy information.
It’s like the genius who has figured out how to make a fortune in the real estate market yet is perfectly willing to sell you his secrets on DVD for $19.99 instead of continuing to leverage his knowledge for millions. Buyer beware.
Thanks for all the info and fodder for an early am wheel turner.
In general superstition goes hand in hand with greater uncertainty, brewing is a lot more finnicky than cooking and it takes WEEKS to know the effects of what you did so no wonder you get a lot of people being pretty superstitious about their beer.
For me personally I`ve come to realize that my palate is radically different than average so I have to take the opinions of people who aren`t me with a big spoonfulof salt since tastes other people barely notice can make a beer undrinkable to me and there are other “overpowering” tastes that I strain to notice.
I’m the opposite. If someone tells me you can’t do something, I will try to prove you can. Or, at the very least, prove that what is regurgitated on forums and blogs over and over is true. An example; Don’t take your strike water from a garden hose or multiple bad things will happen. This is my method for drawing my brewing water and have not had any issues.
Interesting article. This made me click through to his blog. I’m not sure you are that like-minded, at least I hope not. Most of his blog seems to address how awesome he is and how dumb everyone who doesn’t conform to his beliefs is. I noticed a couple references to him trolling social media sites to pick fights or insult other people’s processes. And labeling a section of his bio, “irrelevant bragging,” doesn’t make it sound any less pompous than the 5 paragraphs that follow. It’s just my opinion but this is everything I dislike about home brewing blogs and forums.
Keep up your good work, Brulosophy. I really enjoy your experiments are articles.
Yeah, I caught the same vibe. I’m constantly screwing with my brewing process to look for improvements and shortcuts (probably too much), so I’m in agreement with the article’s general gist. But my sense is that this guy defines most opinions that don’t jive with his to be ‘dogmatic’. For example, in the lager/ale argument, he appears far more dogmatic to me than his opponent does.
I had the same initial impression that you did. I have spent some time reading through his blog today and I’ve really gotten to like it. The more I read, the less I think he’s being a dick, and the more I think he’s just having fun. Here’s a good passage that resonated with me: “If I use hyperbole or humor that seems to mock, I do it only so we can see these hyperbolic cases as exemplars of more-subtle (but no less serious) issues. And rest assured, most of what we’ll be doing here is positive, constructive, helpful, and (of course) simple.”
To each his own of course, but having dug a little deeper I’ve really come to like what I read.
Sorry, but can you post links to where I said I’ve trolled people, their social media, or their websites and insulted them? I can’t think of a single example…
And the irrelevant bragging was to provide some evidence that I know what I’m doing. In the absence of it, it gets very easy to dismiss what I’m writing. I’m as uncomfortable with it as you – but without it I get a lot of, “yeah, but his beer probably tastes like s**t…”
Aside from that, thank you for the feedback – but I do like to ask for verification of claims (especially given where this comment is posted)…
This doesn’t just apply to brewing folks. I see this dogmatic behavior from people in almost every aspect of life, both on the internet and IRL. People are so polarizing these days on just about everything. Is it the result of endless marketing hollowing out the meaning of words and ideas? Is it the result of so-called “experts” and “professionals” on TV that argue not for truth but their version of truth best profiting their interests? Is it the result of a social media world that creates a fake reality for everything? Not sure, but I can agree with Josh; people are absolutely unwilling to be wrong. Though it never really seems like they actually care about being right either, they just don’t want to lose the imagined fight; the fight that their beliefs, or their side’s talking points, or the sacrosanct teachings of those they hold in authority are anything but steadfast true. To question their authority is to question themselves. There is no grey in the world anymore. Everything is either completely true or completely false, everything is either ridiculously awesome or the worst thing evar…
What Ryan says is also true. People seem so eager to latch to authority figures, they will do so whenever a leader appears. Marshall has become a leader of the community through his efforts and exposure, and so he will also attract his devoted followers, creating a reverse-dogma dogma despite his call to critical thinking. Maybe it’s just human nature. In an increasingly complex world, no one has the time to become an expert on everything, so we cling to the beliefs of those who have succeeded before us. “Best practices” are extremely useful, but should really just be viewed as a starting point, methods that work for most, most of the time. To me, these are guidelines, not rules. In every aspect of our lives individual effort must be put forth to take a step back before criticizing new or different ideas. Like they say in the Pixar movie Ratatouille, “the new needs friends”. Have an open mind. Don’t be that guy.
I’ve come to believe the tendency towards dogmatism is human nature and goes hand-in-hand with fear of non-conformity. It’s easy (intellectually lazy) to demonize the person (e.g. you) who says something that conflicts with your beliefs and even easier when they act/behave in a contradictory manner. It’s probably the cause of all societal conflicts and religious wars. We’re just seeing it expressed on a micro level within our hobby. FWIW, I used OneStep for years, too, and never got an infection despite the fact that it’s supposedly just a “cleaner, not a sanitizer.” I’ll also say, this is the reason why participating in online forums isn’t really that much fun, either. All the dogma, self-righteousness, vitriol becomes too much sometimes. It helps to stay focused on why you brew in the first place (good beer) and ignore everything else.
Great response, reminds of my favorite documentary, one that literally changed my perspective on and approach to life, it’s called Flight From Death: The Quest for Immortality. Honestly, check it out, I think it’s free on Hulu Plus 🙂
Will do. Thanks!
Well, I watched it, and that was a very poignant and amazing documentary–so much so that I’m now going to read Becker’s book. It supports my views, too, that dogmatic tendencies are innate, which is a good thing; otherwise I would most likely be engaging in the same derogative behavior towards the film as we are seeing from homebrewers towards unorthodox brewing practices. Very appreciative of you drawing my attention to this documentary!
Awesome! It’s funny, the first time I saw that film was right after it came out and it did not jibe with my personal philosophy. But the research stuck with me, my mind kept mulling over their findings, and eventually I read Becker’s books… all of them. I watched the documentary again, moved onto reading Otto Rank and Erich Fromm, and eventually noticed my entire perspective on life had shifted without me even noticing. Since that time, my life has been a constant search for ways in which I engage in such unconscious negative behavior toward those who disagree with me, mostly so I can address it with myself in the hope of creating a more peaceful existence.
Amen 🙂
I honestly don’t think this is a beer thing, but more of an internet thing. I see it commonly referred to as “butthurt”. People express an opinion about something on the internet and appear to find it difficult to accept other opinions as a point of debate, but rather see it as some sort of personal attack. Butthurt people are rarely rational, because their sore bottoms are preventing them from forming rational explanations, arguments or counter arguments. Unfortunately these people are very often egotistical and don’t play well with others, either on the internet or in “real life”. I say let them do whatever it is they need to do to feel good about themselves, and go about your business, safe in the knowledge that they are simply wrong.
Brew on and Brew Strong, brothers and sisters. Be open-minded, and don’t let the butthurt whinebabys get to you. 😉
My karma ran over my dogma…
Sounds like folks have some serious butt-hurt – on both sides of the argument. Just remember, things other people say have nothing to do with you….
“If it is true that we need a degree of certainty to get by, it is also true that too much of the stuff can be lethal.” ― Terry Eagleton, The Meaning of Life
Thanks. A good column. Certainly the ideas discussed apply far beyond brewing, but nice to see how is works in brewing.
I like brewing classics, they’re classic for a reason. But always open to new processes, and trying different flavours built on the classics.
I enjoy reading the blog, and your experimental attitude has improved my brewing.
Thought you might enjoy this link: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com. The poster is great!
All the best.
Keith
Ha, that site is great!
Great post (and re-post!). I think as a previous comment touched on, internet forums have a lot to answer for when it comes to dogma propagation. Number of forum posts is often equated with superior experience and brewing knowledge, rather than pointing to a more vocal/active forum member. I’m often surprised when you divide an individual’s post-count by the days of membership, the resulting number begs the question as to when they find time to brew!
I appreciate people who use a scientific approach and resultant data to answer questions or challenge commonly held approaches which is why I enjoy this site. New homebrewers have to start somewhere so many probably buy a book or two, talk to fellow homebrewers, or use the trial and error approach. They are either bitten by the hobby and continue on and delve deeper or not. If they continue to brew, they will inevitably seek to broaden their horizons as they seek to make better beer. In my opinion, this is the target audience for sites and forums. Folks that have been at it awhile and have formed their opinions are not likely to change. My analogy for this is religion or politics, try changing someone’s views about those topics, not likely.
Consider your audience when you write. If you’re writing to me, a newer and avid homebrewer and you have useful info that can help me make better beer, I will read it. If you are writing to those that are irreconcilable and your goal it to change their mind, i’m probably not going to read it. I have read some but not all of Josh’s work and don’t really feel his approach will help me brew better beer. I did enjoy his thoughts on one step though.
Brewing MACC tomorrow by the way. Keep up the great work Brulosophy!
“They are either bitten by the hobby and continue on and delve deeper or not. If they continue to brew, they will inevitably seek to broaden their horizons as they seek to make better beer. In my opinion, this is the target audience for sites and forums.”
Agree with you Craig on this point and in theory this is what forums should be – the veterans helping the newbies. Unfortunately, the majority of the advice on forums are from individuals who are actually NOT that experienced. But we can’t be surprised, because it’s usually those people who have learned just enough to stayed interested but not experienced enough to be wise that are the most excited and engaged in the discussion – and that’s a good thing.
We all just need to be careful not to get carried away with our “beliefs”. It’s human nature to cherish most deeply what we know the most. And until we acquire a greater breadth of brewing knowledge and experience, we tend to cling tightly to what little depth we know and feel threatened by anyone we perceive to question these “beliefs”.
I like Josh’s approach – take what makes sense and incorporate it into a process that works for YOU. All we can do is take other perspectives with a grain of salt.