> A blogger wrote a meticulous analysis attacking several details in the book, but probably more nitpicking than actually demolishing its main thesis. The take

> A blogger wrote a meticulous analysis attacking several details in the book, but probably more nitpicking than actually demolishing its main thesis. The takedown gets nitpicky certainly, but the first sections are very much targeting the main thesis of the book, which is that people are not getting enough sleep and that this lack of sleep is causing significant harm. Walker makes claims about the effect of sleep on lifespan and risk of disease that are completely unsupported, and in some cases even contradicted by the sources he provides. You're right that it's groupthink, but it's also basic economy of attention. If the most basic of scrutiny of the opening chapter reveals sweeping unsupported claims, contradictions, and apparent outright fabrications I don't think it's unreasonable to disregard the author as a charlatan, if only because no one has infinite time to dig down to the foundations of every piece of pop-sci in the world.