[BrewBama]

Cheapest approach would be to not view the AHA as an ultimate authority on all things brewing. Hence the forum, where anyone can point out differences,  explain how they do things, discuss best practices, etc etc.

So... the message is: An American home brewer who is looking for an authority on a question should not consult the information provided by the American Homebrew Association for a solution.  Instead, they should go to internet forums because it’s cheaper and has better information.

While I certainly do not question Gordon Strong‘s home brewing technical expertise, I do question the information that has been presented by the AHA in these instances.

I guess I expected more. Cheers!



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[klickitat jim]

One of my favorite debate tools is "SWYSI" so what your saying is...

No, I just said
Cheapest approach would be to not view the AHA as an ultimate authority on all things brewing. Hence the forum, where anyone can point out differences,  explain how they do things, discuss best practices, etc etc.

But maybe I'm wrong, because I'm not really always looking for a source of authority in my hobbies.

[hopfenundmalz]

Cheapest approach would be to not view the AHA as an ultimate authority on all things brewing. Hence the forum, where anyone can point out differences,  explain how they do things, discuss best practices, etc etc.

So... the message is: An American home brewer who is looking for an authority on a question should not consult the information provided by the American Homebrew Association for a solution.  Instead, they should go to internet forums because it’s cheaper and has better information.

While I certainly do not question Gordon Strong‘s home brewing technical expertise, I do question the information that has been presented by the AHA in these instances.

I guess I expected more. Cheers!



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I doubt that Gordon reviews the Tuesday quiz for technical accuracy. He reviews Zymurgy. The Tuesday quiz is on the web page.

[Robert]

As I noted, these instances of questionable info on the website involve recycling material from Zymurgy back before it was reviewed by a technical editor.  The website should indeed be a trusted source of information for the homebrewer,  maybe not the most in-depth (yep there are forums and such for deeper dives) but not misleading.  Not sure what needs to be done.

[klickitat jim]

Is this the mission statement of the AHA?

"With the purpose of promoting the community of homebrewers and empowering homebrewers to make the best beer in the world, the American Homebrewers Association staff works passionately to support its members and elevate awareness of homebrewing."

If so, you have to make some assumptions to get to the point where THEY are appointing themselves as The Brewing Authority.

Or get all pissy and burn it down, what do I care.

[dmtaylor]

No one organization or individual should be respected as an omniscient authority on homebrewing.  It's a hobby.  And it is a young hobby.  We can all learn from one another.  Mistakes will be made.  Usually we will drink the mistakes and just brew some more.

Cheers all.

[ynotbrusum]

I treat my mistakes as unintentional experiments...and drink them, if they taste good enough to deserve consumption.

We all have more knowledge than we started the hobby with and it seems that there are some instances of "2 steps forward and 1 step back" as we go.  I can live with that.

[Robert]

Cheapest approach would be to not view the AHA as an ultimate authority on all things brewing. Hence the forum, where anyone can point out differences,  explain how they do things, discuss best practices, etc etc.

You mean I can't believe everything I see on the internet?

I guess it's like everything else in life, fact check everything yourself. "Trust but verify." I've noticed a couple of threads lately on the forum running something like: OP has  a question, people contribute, OP comes back saying thanks guys, I went and did some more research, here's what I found. Maybe later this too gets corrected. That's how we really learn. And share in a supportive community. Drinking mistakes was the only tool we had way back when. Thanks, Jim for posting the mission statement.   Good reality check.

[BrewBama]

Well, I guess if I am getting pissy I am in good company. This is a pretty good example: Scottish Ales
https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?share_fid=40079&share_tid=29752&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ehomebrewersassociation%2Eorg%2Fforum%2Findex%2Ephp%3Ftopic%3D29752&share_type=t


I especially like this quote:

Being on the cutting edge of anything has its perils. Ron is suffering from this now. All I can say is for Ron to get the word out more widely and then those tired texts and wives tales will fall from use.

I don't blame the average homebrewer for not keeping up on every bit of historical research (even though Ron and others have been giving it away from free on their blogs for a really long time), but the editors at Zymurgy (and Brew Your Own) seem to have abdicated all responsibility for fact checking on historical beer styles. If the editors haven't heard of Ron Pattinson and allow an article to go through that only cites a reference from 1993 (oh wait, its from Brewers Publications, so it must be ok) then they aren't doing their jobs.

Here's an idea.  Find a homebrewer or historian or two and invite them to the editorial advisory board.  And if there's an article that makes a claim about historical beer styles, email it it to them and ask them if it stands up to what historical beer research has been saying. I'm sure Ron would rather give you feedback before it is published rather than have a heart attack while reading it after it is published.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[klickitat jim]

Ya know what, now that you ruined my day by reminding me of the Scottish beer style debacle, I have to apologize and agree with you. Anyone who still perpetuates invented fake Scottish beer style info, should be severely reprimanded.

[hopfenundmalz]

Tuesday I stopped at a brewery in the next town east, where a friend brews. He had a Scotch Ale on, the sample was so malty. 98% Pale Malt, 2% Roast Malt @ vorlauf. I complimented him for not throughing in a bag of pleated malt!

[Phil_M]

The lack of sound technical information from the AHA is why I allowed my membership to lapse. All this is a great example of that.

Yes, the AHA's purpose is to further brewing, not be a technical authority on brewing. However, allowing misinformation to be regularly broadcast from their platform will only tarnish their reputation and hinder their efforts to serve out hobby. Fake news, anyone?

The AHA doesn't need to be Seibel, or Kunze, or even Ron. (Though the BJCP ought to at least LOOK at his blog...) They SHOULD at least have the in-house knowledge to sort fact from fiction.

[hopfenundmalz]

The lack of sound technical information from the AHA is why I allowed my membership to lapse. All this is a great example of that.

Yes, the AHA's purpose is to further brewing, not be a technical authority on brewing. However, allowing misinformation to be regularly broadcast from their platform will only tarnish their reputation and hinder their efforts to serve out hobby. Fake news, anyone?

The AHA doesn't need to be Seibel, or Kunze, or even Ron. (Though the BJCP ought to at least LOOK at his blog...) They SHOULD at least have the in-house knowledge to sort fact from fiction.

Ron Pattinson is listed under “Review and Commentary” in the 2015 Guidelines.  He was involved at some level to get that call out.
https://www.bjcp.org/docs/2015_Guidelines_Beer.pdf

Fake news indeed.

[Phil_M]

The lack of sound technical information from the AHA is why I allowed my membership to lapse. All this is a great example of that.

Yes, the AHA's purpose is to further brewing, not be a technical authority on brewing. However, allowing misinformation to be regularly broadcast from their platform will only tarnish their reputation and hinder their efforts to serve out hobby. Fake news, anyone?

The AHA doesn't need to be Seibel, or Kunze, or even Ron. (Though the BJCP ought to at least LOOK at his blog...) They SHOULD at least have the in-house knowledge to sort fact from fiction.

Ron Pattinson is listed under “Review and Commentary” in the 2015 Guidelines.  He was involved at some level to get that call out.
https://www.bjcp.org/docs/2015_Guidelines_Beer.pdf

Fake news indeed.

I stand corrected. I'll admit I haven't really done a deep dive into the 2015 guidelines.

[klickitat jim]

The difference is that the authoritarian thing is far more obvious with the BJCP.