OldeWhig’s Dubble-Triple 1.0

Here's a recipe I put together about a month ago. The style is somewhere between a strong dubble and a triple. Overall I think this is a pretty good beer. It's very malty and has some traces of fruit. The main problem I encountered with this beer was poor head retention and it wasn't as complex as I'd like. The recipe and specs are below

Batch: 5 gallons

Boil: 3 Gallons

6 lbs gold malt extract

3 lbs light DME

1 lbs Belgium rock candy sugar

1 lbs Belgium soft candy sugar

1 oz saaz hops (60 min)

1 oz Fuggles (20 min)

1 oz saaz (8 min)

White labs Abby Ale yeast

Add gypsum and Irish moss as required

SPECS

OG: 1.093

FG: 1.023

IBU: 24

SRM: 16

I used 1 ¼ cup DME to carbonate, this resulted in a very smooth drink, but personally I would have liked more fizz. Also be sure to bottle condition for at least 3 weeks.

Next time I brew this beer I plan to drop the OG by decreasing the candy sugar, I'll incorporate some special B and maybe chocolate malt to the grain bill for better head (that's what she said) and complexity, bump up the IBUs just a tad, and I may also attempt to carbonate at a higher level.

If you want a more fruity brew, try using white labs Trappist ale yeast.

Ethics for Social Scientists

Social scientists face a difficult task. They must play the role of scientists, which requires objectivity in observation and analysis. But unlike other scientists, the subject matter of social science, people, is choked full of values which can derail the scientific process. This makes objectivity an elusive goal for social scientists. For example, it’s difficult to approach the subject of genocide objectively; most people are not going to be able to separate themselves from their own value judgments that that genocide is evil. As a result the researcher runs the risk of their own biases obscuring the truth.

The great pitfall of social science is that too often its debates loose sight of the science and start arguing ethics and values. People will argue if foreign aid is good, or weather or not parliamentary democracy is better than another system of governance. These value judgments of “good” and “better” start to be argued like they are facts that exist out there in the world. The objective, measurable data of social science takes a back seat to value judgments in these debates. When this happens social science ceases to be a science at all.

One way for social scientists to stay on task is to change the way they think about values. They can adopt a form of moral anti-realism called projectivism. Projectivism argues that there are no moral facts in the world. Meaning that when we say something is good there is no truth value attached to the predicate “is good.” Instead, saying something is good is more akin to saying “yay!” or “boo!” An utterance like “boo!” can’t be true or false. So when we say dictatorships are bad we are really just saying “boo dictatorships!” This goes a long way in resolving the conflicting values encountered by social scientists. Values are no longer pervasive facts about the world, but rather an expression of individual preferences.

Imagine researchers encounter two cultures fighting over weather vanilla or chocolate ice cream is better. The researchers’ job will be much easier and objective if they are not concerned about which ice cream is, in fact, really better. If they simply regard the values of each culture to be expressions of preferences that have no truth values, the researcher will be able to do a more scientific job. That probably sounds like a commonsense thing for a researcher to do, but now imagine instead of ice cream the cultures are fighting over the right to own slaves. In such a case it’s harder for the researcher not to think that there are facts about right and wrong. But once again the science will be more objective and easier if the researcher regards the values involved as preferences that can be neither true nor false.

A few precautions: First DO NOT confuses projectivism with subjectivism or relativism. They are not the same thing. Subjectivism and relativism entail that there are moral facts and that the moral facts are dependent on the individual or culture, consequently one can still be wrong about values. Projectivism does not do this, it argues that there are no moral facts; an utterance of a preference can’t be right or wrong. Second, I’m not advocating that projectivism is a good way to approach ethics in day-to-day life; I’m not sure what is. I’m simply saying that it can serve as a useful framework for social scientists.

The Cost of Paternalism

Talk of paternalism sends chills up my spine. Until recently I couldn't explain why. Paternalism is just what it sounds like, except it is the state telling you what is good for you, not just your mom and pop who make you eat your veggies. The driving force behind paternalistic policies is that people are not smart enough to know what's good for them; even in light of sufficient information paternalists argue that individuals just aren't capable of deciding what's best for them. New York's trans-fat ban is a good example, even if you people knew all the risks of trans-fat, the city of New York argued that people wouldn't make the "right" choice, so it banned trans-fat, effectively making the decision for them. I've never liked paternalism, mostly because I think people are better off when they can make their own choices, since individuals tend to have a better idea about they really value than government bureaucrats. However, I've always felt that there was something else wrong with paternalism, which operated at a deeper, more fundamental level.

For the sake of argument assume that it is possible for a government to engineer ideal living conditions through paternalism. Additionally, let's assume that the government is so good at doing this that you aren't even aware of the paternalistic polices in action (akin to the soft paternalism championed by Sunstien and Thaler). Would such a paternalistic world actually be a desirable one? I think not, because paternalism undercuts that which makes life worth living.

Philosopher Robert Nozick in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia has an interesting thought experiment which helps to illustrate this point. Imagine you are offered a chance to plug into a "dream machine." The machine will allow you to dream that you are in an ideal life. You will be able to do anything you want, pitch the World Series, cure cancer, win a Pulitzer. The dream machine is so realistic that once plugged in you will not be able to distinguish the dream world form the real world. Everything that happens in the dream machine you will believe is actually happening in your actual life. Here's the catch, once you plug into the machine, you can't unplug. The second you unplug from the machine you will die. After describing the machine Nozick poses an interesting question to his readers, "Would you plug in? Would a life in the dream machine be worth living?"

Think about it.

If your intuitions are anything like mine, you probably said no. But ask yourself, why not? After all you could have any life you wanted in the machine, all your preferences could be satisfied, you would experience a perfect life in the machine. In his book, Nozick argues the reason you wouldn't plug in to the machine is because it isn't a real life it's a manufactured one, which isn't really much of a life at all. The intrinsic features that make life so valuable disappear when we enter a world engineered to be "perfect." I think this is the case with paternalism. Paternalism debases our lives by trapping us in a cocoon of good intentions. The outcomes may be optimal, but the paternalistic process negates the value of these outcomes. As Tennyson put it in his poem "Ulysses," "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield," is what give our lives meaning, the outcomes are only of secondary importance. Being allowed to choose poorly, to fail, and to hurt make life tough, but they are also the things that make success so sweet. There really is something valuable about facing the prospect of failure and succeeding in the face of it. When we are coddled by a nanny state this value is wiped out of our lives. As a result, government polices can't force people into living good, valuable lives. If people are to live lives worth living they need to exercise ownership over their actions, and face the consequences; they need the freedom to make their own choices.

Biology, Moral Agency, and Choice

 

Recently, my college's newspaper had a serious of letters condemning discrimination against homosexuals. The letters sprang from the fact that two students at my school were upset that their future roommate was gay and were trying to get him to change rooms. When word of this got out students decried their bigotry and wrote letters to the editor stating that such discriminations was akin to objecting to roommate's race. I think many students in this debate made an elementary blunder by failing to account for moral agency.

Before going any further let me preface by saying that, I have no strong views on sexual orientation, and don't see someone's orientation as a good or bad thing, it's simply just a fact. However, I do have a problem with sloppy reasoning and that's what I want to address here. Sexuality differs from race and gender (I define gender as either having an XX or XY chromosome configuration) in one critical aspect, it can (though not necessary) involve moral agency. Race and gender have no moral agency component; they are simply a biological fact determined by forces outside the moral agent's will. A person's race and gender are determined prior to birth by the chance combination of certain genetic material. This is why people see it as deplorable to judge others based on race and gender, the person qua moral agent had nothing to do with picking their race or gender, it was thrust upon them by forces outside their control. Since the forces were outside their control, don't attribute responsibility to them for their race and gender, and hence have no grounds on which to hold them morally responsible.

Sexuality differs in this key aspect. Yes, sexual orientation is probably a product of biology, and as such can't really be morally condemned. However, how a person handles their orientation is not purely biological, free will is involved. A person with a given orientation makes choices. They exercise free choice and will themselves qua moral agents to take certain actions. Since they choose to partake in certain sexual behavior, they are responsible (at least in part) for their behavior. This allows for criticism that is not possible in the case of race and gender. You can critique people on the sexual choices they make because they are making choices as moral agents, and moral agents are responsible for the choices they make. So when people say sexuality is the same as race they are neglecting an important distinction. Sexual behavior has a moral component because it involves choices and responsibility, while race and gender involve neither of these.

Now, this isn't to say that some the sexual choices people make are better than others. I am arguing simply that we can hold people be responsible for the expression of their sexuality in way we cannot do for race and gender. The moral value that attached to a particular choice, however, is open to debate.

St. Bernadus, hear my prayer!

I'm in beer heaven. I'm writing this now with a Chimay chalice brimming with St. Bernadus Prior 8. This beer is exquisite. It's malty, sweet, fruity, and complex. It's everything I look for in a dubble and then some. I've had the fortune of sampling some of St. Bernadus's best over the last two evenings. Their Abbot 12 and tripel are both excellent as well. Abbot 12 is a quadruple. It's rich, chocolaty, sophisticated, and potent. Their triple falls in line with the classic style, but is more malty and fruity than other triples I've had. I'm completely floored by these beers and highly recommend them, but if you don't trust me, follow the above links to Beer Advocate for some expert opinions.

I think St. Bernadus is the best beer for you dollar. Some Trappist beers probably edge out St. Bernadus, but they are also twice as expensive. St. Bernadus hits that magical equilibrium between quality and quantity. It's no wonder why the brewery is able to do this. They used to brew for the Trappists on contract, but when the Trappist name was restricted to beers originating inside the monasteries' walls, the brewery struck out on its own. St. Bernadus gives you a beer brewed in the Trappist tradition without the inflated price that accompanies the Trappist trademark. Sadly, I've found this beer difficult to obtain. I've visited several stores boasting plentiful Trappist inventories that neglected to carry St. Bernadus. I've only found it twice. I found it once at a DC restaurant boasting over 1000 beers, and once again at an out of the way liquor store in southeast Ohio. So if you are fortunate to chance upon it consider stocking up.

Two points to keep in mind when drinking these beers. One, despite their sweetness and smoothness these beers are strong (Abbot 12 is 10%ABV). So, take your time and savor the experience. Second, the sediment tends to be a bit unstable. There are several ways to deal with this. 1) You can leave the last ¼ of the beer in the bottle (what a waste). 2) Chill your beer below cellar temperature then pour it and let the yeast settle in the glass as it warms. Lastly, you can just pour the whole bottle in and drink the yeast, it won't kill you and you will get your daily dose of vitamin B.

I give all the beers above a 9.75/10 (N.B. I don't give 10s out to beers because the day I find the perfect beer, is the day I have nothing left to live for.)

An Economist’s Perspective on Love

Economics is regarded as a science that thrives on two primary assumptions: First, people are fairly rational. Second, people act in their own self-interest.

The fact that we are capable of falling and being in love probably seems to fly in the face of economic reasoning. You do crazy things when you’re in love, taking risks the “rational” you would consider outrageous. You’re willing to make sacrifices for a lover, even when there appears to be nothing in it for you. A love struck person sounds like a far cry from the individual envisioned by economists. I don’t think this is really the case. Economics is perfectly capable of accounting for behaviors such as love.

According to classic economic thought, individuals are self-interested and act to maximize their utility function (their personal satisfaction). Economics can account for love by explaining love as the phenomenon that occurs when person’s utility function is at least partially a function of someone else’s utility function. This is to say that if Andy loves Betty, then Andy’s utility is based, in part, on the personal utility of Betty. So even though Andy may be a self-interested individual, he still has reason to take an intense interest in the wellbeing of Betty. Consequently, when Andy’s utility is dependent on Betty’s utility we can expect Andy to bear certain hardships to ensure that Betty is well off; depending on the precise utility function of Andy, he may be willing to suffer severe physical harm to help Betty.

So classical economic thought is perfectly capable of accounting for the “irrational” behavior that results from love. When Andy appears to make a sacrifice for Betty it isn’t a sacrifice at all. Andy’s utility depends on Betty’s utility, so it is perfectly rational and in-line with self-interest. Andy should and wants to make a sacrifice (at a reasonable cost) to help Betty, since the net benefit received from ensuring Betty is well- off far exceeds the cost. Economics can account for even the most extreme sacrifices. Say Andy takes a bullet for Betty and dies, this isn’t necessarily irrational or contrary to Andy’s self-interest. If Andy’s utility function is such that a life without Betty would be so bad that he would experience a utility less than zero, then it make absolute sense for Andy to take the bullet, since the zero utility of being dead is preferable to negative utility.

One might object to this by citing an example of young teenagers behaving irrationally over love. They proclaim that “they can’t live without each other,” and will “do anything for each other,” engaging in extremely risky behavior for each other. Surely, such behavior by naïve teenagers must be “irrational,” and behaving contrary to economic thought. Not necessarily, a third party may look at the teens and declare they are irrational because they are too caught up in the present and not adequately thinking about the future. The fact that the teen lovers care only about their present conditions is not irrational, it’s simply matter of their time preference. They weight their present situation as being much more important than their future, and as a result greatly discount the risks of their actions. This discounting isn’t rational or irrational, it’s non-rational. Preferences simply are and cannot criticized on grounds of rationality.

So there’s an economic and entirely unromantic take on love for you.

Getting to know your beer pt. 1

Beer and is both a science and an art, and, consequently is complex topic to master. However, there are a few basic elements that once grasped, can set anyone on the path to becoming a beer connoisseur. Beer is made of water, malt, hops, yeast, and in some cases adjuncts. If you understand the role of each of these ingredients you have come a long way in understanding the flavor profiles different beers.


 Water- The role of H2O probably seems pretty straight forward, but is actually something brewers worry about a lot. The minerals and ph of brewing water have can have a huge impact on the final product. Ales from Burton, England gain their distinct character from the unique water in the area which is choked full of minerals. Water from Pilsen, Czech has much fewer minerals in its water, which imparts a cleaner crisper taste to those beers. To learn more and see some water profile of famous brewing cities go here.

 Malt- Malt is the grain which provides the sugar for the beer. The most typical malt is barley, but wheat is sometimes substituted in certain styles. There are varieties of different malts that can be used in a beer. Usually, beer is made of a combination of base and specialty malts. Base malts serve mainly to provide the sugar for the beer. Specialty malts add sugar as well, but are employed more for their ability to impart certain characteristics to a beer. Many English malts are used to achive a biscuity quality, while darkly roasted malts can add a chocolate or coffee like flavor. To see specific malt descriptions go here.

 Hops- Hops are actually flowers. They bitter the beer and help to counteract the sweetness of the malt. Different kinds of hops can be used in different levels of bite in a beer. Hops can also be added near the end of brewing process to impart some of their floral qualities to the beer, which can range from citrusy to spicy. To learn more about different hop varieties go here.

 Yeast- Yeast is the workhorse of the brewing process. Yeast converts the sugar from the malt and turns it into alcohol. Different yeasts do this in different ways. Some yeast will result in sweet and fruity beers while others will create dry and crisp tasting beers. For brewers selecting the right yeast is probably the most important factor when it comes to really nailing a certain style. To learn more about yeast and what they do to beers visit White Labs.

 Adjuncts- Adjuncts is the catchall category for beer ingredients. Fruit, honey, coffee, Belgian candi sugar, and spices all fall into this category.