5 ms·

Note that Matt Walker has fallen from grace, at least on HN. His book "Why we sleep" used to be widely recommended around here, but there appear to be very seri

Note that Matt Walker has fallen from grace, at least on HN. His book "Why we sleep" used to be widely recommended around here, but there appear to be very serious scientific shortcomings affecting some of the information he presents. See e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21546850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21546850 That is not to say he's wrong on every count, but take what he says with a huge grain of "might have been invented/fudged and then cited from and by himself" salt.

lprd 6y ago
I wasn't aware of that, thanks for the info!
unmole 6y ago
You might be interested in a counterpoint from someone who (claims to) study sleep: https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/dwtr0m/matthew_walkers_why_we_sleep_is_riddled_with/f7mid7m/ https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/dwtr0m/matt...
- edjrage 6y ago
  You literally linked to the same article as the parent comment.
  - throwawaw 6y ago
    Wouldn't that be shocking? But in fact, the URL in question opens a specific reply to that article. How embarrassing!
    - edjrage 6y ago
      Dammit, sorry.
- MauranKilom 6y ago
  Yes, I have seen that. The author of the article has also posted a refutation of the counterpoints, with no substantive replies by Kinkajoe. The overarching point that guzey makes is "the book is not scientifically sound, despite Matthew Walker plainly stating in the introduction that it would be". Arguing that Walker's claims are "hyperbolic, [but] within reason", that it's ok because "it is a book intended for the public" or that all this is "justified by the important message he is trying to convey" is completely besides the point! That may all be true and not change the needle one bit on "scientifically accurate". Making up unsubstantiated claims to ""convey a message"" in a book and then later citing the book in your own scientific papers is the exact opposite of academic integrity. Hence my advice to take Walker's work with an appropriate grain of salt.

lprd 6y ago

I wasn't aware of that, thanks for the info!

unmole 6y ago

You might be interested in a counterpoint from someone who (claims to) study sleep: https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/dwtr0m/matthew_walkers_why_we_sleep_is_riddled_with/f7mid7m/ https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/dwtr0m/matt...

edjrage 6y ago
You literally linked to the same article as the parent comment.
- throwawaw 6y ago
  Wouldn't that be shocking? But in fact, the URL in question opens a specific reply to that article. How embarrassing!
  - edjrage 6y ago
    Dammit, sorry.
MauranKilom 6y ago
Yes, I have seen that. The author of the article has also posted a refutation of the counterpoints, with no substantive replies by Kinkajoe. The overarching point that guzey makes is "the book is not scientifically sound, despite Matthew Walker plainly stating in the introduction that it would be". Arguing that Walker's claims are "hyperbolic, [but] within reason", that it's ok because "it is a book intended for the public" or that all this is "justified by the important message he is trying to convey" is completely besides the point! That may all be true and not change the needle one bit on "scientifically accurate". Making up unsubstantiated claims to ""convey a message"" in a book and then later citing the book in your own scientific papers is the exact opposite of academic integrity. Hence my advice to take Walker's work with an appropriate grain of salt.