A Sourdough Reminder About Decision Making Without Statistics

My mother and I troubleshoot her twice-weekly sourdough. It passes any reasonable test: it is bread. It is safe to eat. It is great buttered, toasted, sandwiched or crouton-ed. It keeps a couple of days. It is the delicious carb you want to eat.

We do disagree on how to solve the invariably recurring strip of dense, undercooked bread at the bottom of the loaf, where the raw dough tucks underneath itself and forms a seam that is placed downwards in the loaf pan.

Fundamentally, we disagree with how to approach the problem.

Like any normal consumer, Mum doesn’t care too much. I want it gone. While she is happy trying small changes (unlikely to affect the bread we eat), I propose drastic – likely silly – experiments1 to reduce the dense strip. Mum (Judge, Jury, and Baker) won’t budge on any of my pleads, the most important being that she record her process.

First, note the objective of your experiment, possibly even note the baseline you are working from.

Second, describe the action you are performing – no causation without manipulation!

Third, write what you believe your action will do. If utter nonsense, you may not
perform the experiment.

Fourth, write an adoption (or rejection) condition for your action.

Fifth, run your experiment!

Sixth, record what happened.

Seven: reflect. Even if the action passes your test does it compromise anything else? Does it throw the baby out with the bathwater? Is it worth the hassle?

Let me make myself abundantly clear: on any reasonable metric of homemade bread, it is still good. It passes most tests about baking and eating bread. It doesn’t have to be better, or any more precise. It just depends on what we want and how we weigh benefits and costs.