7 ms·

These are the kinds of articles that give science a bad name, and that make people anti-science. You might as well try to claim hot tea doesn't help you get to

These are the kinds of articles that give science a bad name, and that make people anti-science. You might as well try to claim hot tea doesn't help you get to sleep, or reading before bed doesn't, or whatever else you do to wind down. I personally don't care if some narrow hypothesis about blue light and melanopsin is false. I know that low, warm, amber-tinted light in the evening slows me down in a way that low, cold, blue-tinted light does not. That's why I use different, warmer lamps at night with dimmers, and keep my devices on Night Shift and lower brightness. It works for me, and seems to mimic the lighting conditions we evolved with -- strong blue light around noon, weaker warmer light at sunset, weakest warmest light from the fire until we go to sleep. Maybe it doesn't work for everybody. That's fine. But it certainly does for me. And maybe it's not modulated by melanopsin. Or maybe it's not about blue light, but rather the overall correlated color temperature (CCT), e.g. 2100K instead of 5700K. Who knows. But this type of article is bad science writing. It shows why one hypothesis as to why a warmer color temperature would result in one other physiological change isn't supported. That doesn't mean "blue light filters don't work" as a universal statement. It's hubris on the part of the author to assume that this one hypothesis is the only potential mechanism by which warmer light might help with sleep. And it's this kind of science writing that turns people off to science. I know, through lots of trial and error and experimentation, that warm light helps me fall asleep. And here comes some "AI researcher and neurotechnologist" trying to tell me I'm wrong? He says it's "aggravating" that people are "actually using Night Shift". I say it's aggravating when people like him make the elemental mistake that showing one biological mechanism doesn't have an effect, means no other mechanisms can either.

AshamedCaptain 8mo ago
> These are the kinds of articles that give science a bad name, and that make people anti-science. No, it is attitude like yours that brings humanity a bad name. "Blue light effects" have always had highly questionable evidence behind it, what has been sold and marketed under the guise of it has had _zero_ evidence behind it. But now that you are reminded that it is actually bullshit, you react with skepticism. "Feels good to me" is hardly evidence to begin with. It's something that is even more flimsy than sociology. I have my doubts it should even be called medicine. You have to remember that a shitton of people day after day "show" "evidence" that homeopathy works. Even though it has no plausible mechanism of action. So clear mechanism of action is about as important as the evidence itself. (see Science-based medicine) I could understand (not justify) skepticism in many cases (such as "common wisdom" from 1000 years ago) but this particular topic should have raised your skepticism 20 years ago back when the craze/marketing stunt was starting, and not now.
- chuckadams 8mo ago
  Someone says that other psychological factors (which have physical effects) help them sleep and they "bring humanity a bad name"? Maybe think on that a little bit.
  - AshamedCaptain 8mo ago
    No, he said "this gives science a bad name"/"makes people anti-science" because some article published something that contradicts his anecdote of how well he thinks he sleeps. That gives humanity a bad name. And your direct insults do, too (which fortunately have been edited out).
    - chuckadams 8mo ago
      The direct insult where I said "touch some fucking grass"? I certainly stand by it now.
      - IAmBroom 8mo ago
        Why? You're proud of your insults?
- crazygringo 8mo ago
  > "Feels good to me" is hardly evidence to begin with Where did I say anything like that? Please don't mischaracterize my comment, that's not helpful. It's not that it "feels good", it's that it helps at least some people fall asleep more easily, and I know this from personal experience. And many, many other people have written that it does the same for them. > "Blue light effects" have always had highly questionable evidence behind it... But now that you are reminded that it is actually bullshit You're right that the evidence for it is questionable. But you know what else there's no conclusive evidence for? That hot herbal tea helps you fall asleep. Or soothing music. Or bedtime stories. Because the funding usually isn't there to perform the kind of large-scale studies required to establish these things, because it's just not a priority or even a good use of our dollars. And lack of evidence for, is not the same as evidence against. My point is, nothing in this article does establish that it is "actually bullshit". That's a gross misreading of the science, and that's what I'm criticizing the article over. People experiment with things and discover what works and what doesn't. Again, nobody's going around complaining that there's no scientific evidence lullabyes don't help put you to sleep. And neither lullabyes, nor turning your lights down to amber, have anything to do with homeopathy. You can't possibly suggest they're doing harm. People aren't using amber lighting at night instead of getting their cancer treated. But for some reason, low amber lighting to help with sleep makes you and the article author upset? Why? Why does that make you upset, but not hot tea or lullabyes? Or do those make you upset too?
anonymars 8mo ago
> But this type of article is bad science writing. It shows why one hypothesis as to why a warmer color temperature would result in one other physiological change isn't supported I don't know if I'd even give them that credit (emphasis mine): > Halving the luminance, at best (around 20 lux baseline) might get you from 50% to 25% melatonin suppression.
orbital-decay 8mo ago
What if these filters also cure cancer by some mechanism that isn't known yet? Who knows, it might be true! After long experimentation with warmer lighting my cancer is gone, so it definitely worked for me. What you're saying is not science either. The entire medical usage of blue light filters hinges on just a few papers. If you really can prove those studies inapplicable you can prove that there's no objective reason to use them (I'm not necessarily saying the author did that). Whether these filters feel nice is entirely unrelated question, nobody stops you from decorating your living space as you see fit.

AshamedCaptain 8mo ago

> These are the kinds of articles that give science a bad name, and that make people anti-science. No, it is attitude like yours that brings humanity a bad name. "Blue light effects" have always had highly questionable evidence behind it, what has been sold and marketed under the guise of it has had _zero_ evidence behind it. But now that you are reminded that it is actually bullshit, you react with skepticism. "Feels good to me" is hardly evidence to begin with. It's something that is even more flimsy than sociology. I have my doubts it should even be called medicine. You have to remember that a shitton of people day after day "show" "evidence" that homeopathy works. Even though it has no plausible mechanism of action. So clear mechanism of action is about as important as the evidence itself. (see Science-based medicine) I could understand (not justify) skepticism in many cases (such as "common wisdom" from 1000 years ago) but this particular topic should have raised your skepticism 20 years ago back when the craze/marketing stunt was starting, and not now.

chuckadams 8mo ago
Someone says that other psychological factors (which have physical effects) help them sleep and they "bring humanity a bad name"? Maybe think on that a little bit.
- AshamedCaptain 8mo ago
  No, he said "this gives science a bad name"/"makes people anti-science" because some article published something that contradicts his anecdote of how well he thinks he sleeps. That gives humanity a bad name. And your direct insults do, too (which fortunately have been edited out).
  - chuckadams 8mo ago
    The direct insult where I said "touch some fucking grass"? I certainly stand by it now.
    - IAmBroom 8mo ago
      Why? You're proud of your insults?
crazygringo 8mo ago
> "Feels good to me" is hardly evidence to begin with Where did I say anything like that? Please don't mischaracterize my comment, that's not helpful. It's not that it "feels good", it's that it helps at least some people fall asleep more easily, and I know this from personal experience. And many, many other people have written that it does the same for them. > "Blue light effects" have always had highly questionable evidence behind it... But now that you are reminded that it is actually bullshit You're right that the evidence for it is questionable. But you know what else there's no conclusive evidence for? That hot herbal tea helps you fall asleep. Or soothing music. Or bedtime stories. Because the funding usually isn't there to perform the kind of large-scale studies required to establish these things, because it's just not a priority or even a good use of our dollars. And lack of evidence for, is not the same as evidence against. My point is, nothing in this article does establish that it is "actually bullshit". That's a gross misreading of the science, and that's what I'm criticizing the article over. People experiment with things and discover what works and what doesn't. Again, nobody's going around complaining that there's no scientific evidence lullabyes don't help put you to sleep. And neither lullabyes, nor turning your lights down to amber, have anything to do with homeopathy. You can't possibly suggest they're doing harm. People aren't using amber lighting at night instead of getting their cancer treated. But for some reason, low amber lighting to help with sleep makes you and the article author upset? Why? Why does that make you upset, but not hot tea or lullabyes? Or do those make you upset too?

anonymars 8mo ago

> But this type of article is bad science writing. It shows why one hypothesis as to why a warmer color temperature would result in one other physiological change isn't supported I don't know if I'd even give them that credit (emphasis mine): > Halving the luminance, at best (around 20 lux baseline) might get you from 50% to 25% melatonin suppression.

orbital-decay 8mo ago

What if these filters also cure cancer by some mechanism that isn't known yet? Who knows, it might be true! After long experimentation with warmer lighting my cancer is gone, so it definitely worked for me. What you're saying is not science either. The entire medical usage of blue light filters hinges on just a few papers. If you really can prove those studies inapplicable you can prove that there's no objective reason to use them (I'm not necessarily saying the author did that). Whether these filters feel nice is entirely unrelated question, nobody stops you from decorating your living space as you see fit.