Coffee: The Pretense of Knowledge
I’m tired of Barista Speak unsupported by facts. As a community, we are remarkably good at brewing coffee, and a lot of us are even better at talking about our latest brew / recipe. I’m not speaking from the soapbox here: I’ve done my fair share of brewing and enthusing (it must be the coffee), and I think for the most part that’s fine. What irks me is when we baristas forget the difference between our gastronomical discoveries and real science.
Genuine scientific investigations of coffee, like anything else, must be based on a clear hypothesis and tested to statistical significance in an environment where all contaminating variables are controlled. It’s really tough, it’s boring to most of us, and for the most part I think we don’t even know how to formulate questions with sufficient precision to conduct real scientific work. I know I have trouble being rigorous enough in my thinking.
That’s all ok. I don’t think we should try to be who we’re not. Most of us are more like chefs than lab nerds. BUT, I do get annoyed hearing pseudo-claim after pseudo-claim about extraction, filtration, brewing temperature or recipe based on one person’s discovery in the last 48 hours. I’m not bashing coffee-fueled buzz, I’m just asking for it to stay buzz and not veer into the realm of the objective. Look honestly at your brew: can you know your tongue isn’t lying? Especially when lying makes you look good? I can’t. If I’m honest, all I can measure are weights, time, and a little bit of temperature at one spot in the brew / bed. Yes, measuring extraction percentage with Extract Mojo is a huge advance forward for the industry, but again that’s a single data point dependent on other parameters (like accurate temperature). It can’t be an oracular answer to the question: what is good coffee?
Finishing up, here’s a meditation on the pretense of knowledge by economist F.A. Hayek. Yes, of course it has nothing to do with coffee. But it’s appropriate.
