[1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/12/191216173654.h...
Emphasis on "may".
"Our findings suggest that using dim, cooler, lights in the evening and bright warmer lights in the day may be more beneficial."
Emphasis on "suggests".
Also, the study's title itself.
"Cones Support Alignment to an Inconsistent World by Suppressing Mouse Circadian Responses to the Blue Colors Associated with Twilight."
Emphasis on "mouse".
Science oozes back and forth. You should not strongly interpret individual studies. Debunked is a strong word here.
The current study has has not found links between cool light at night and sleep patterns. That may change in the future, sure, but current science suggests said theory is debunked (and I’m not afraid to use that word).
Maybe we could say the theory is "weakened" by the new evidence or that it is now more "controversial" than it was before. "Debunk" sounds like blue light having an impact or circadian rhythm is some random "fake news" that could be found on Facebook, when it is still backed by some decent evidence.
I have not added my own views on the subject, but merely highlighted existing words that seem to have been overlooked by some who have only read the news briefs and not the full study itself.
From the conclusion: "An especially pertinent question, however, is whether the effects of color described here extend to other mammals, such as humans."
The word "debunk" does not appear on any of the 13 pages of text.
Who said the word appeared in the text? Who said the word has to appear in the text for it to be used in discussions among people?
> I have not added my own views on the subject, but merely highlighted existing words that seem to have been overlooked by some who have only read the news briefs and not the full study itself.
The words were not emphasized in the paper itself. You chose to explicitly point out certain things in order to discredit the comment you were replying to. You know exactly how your comment comes off, and by doing it you, indeed, add your own views to the subject.
=\=
"The effects of color described here extend to other mammals, such as humans."
The first is in the text. The second is an interpretation of the text.
Dismissing the content of a scientific article and replacing the existing words to support your own interpretation of the text is exactly adding your own views on the subject.
This study is but one step in the scientific process towards verifying this fact. Hopefully, the next step is taken soon and the theory is tested on humans.
Should that next paper conclude with "Blue light is not disruptive to human sleep patterns", then I would absolutely agree that debunking has been had.
In fact, since you are pushing to know my own views, I would be thrilled about it. Issues with sleep quality is something that affects me and having a concrete answer about the subject at hand would allow me to make better and more enlightened choices about steps to improve my sleep quality.
But this is not the case here, right now this would be selling the skin before having caught the bear.
Is this a good moment to slow down, analyse and ponder? Absolutely. Do test out if f.lux actually has an effect on you if you are a daily user. Do try to use another color than red in your Philips Hue sleep routine. But now is not the time to take direct actions.
...
Let's step back for a minute and imagine we were talking about a study about medication.
Let's say that an animal study came out that concluded with "An especially pertinent question, however, is whether the toxicity of acetaminophen extend to other mammals, such as humans."
I would without a doubt leave a comment highlighting the content of the paper to show the commenter that no, an animal study should not be strongly interpreted as debunking the safety of acetaminophen in humans.
Would you also write: "You chose to explicitly point out certain things in order to discredit the comment you were replying to. You know exactly how your comment comes off, and by doing it you, indeed, add your own views to the subject" in that situation?
Not really.
The point is this, the whole blue light business popped up because the people who were doing the studies forgot that amber dusks are fairly rare outside of cities/equator.
Those of us nearer the poles have long, blue evenings. Yes, in march and august we tend to have brilliant orange sunsets. However those are the exceptions, not the rule. If you look at the colour temperature from noon till actual dusk, you'll see that it increases as time goes on.
pinning screen colour on the quality of sleep is a fools errand. We do not look at a screen for it's colour we look at for its content. That content has a much great effect on our sleep than the screen brightness and colour temperature.
TLDR: twilight is blue, not orange. Colour temperature and sleep quality is not convincingly linked.
As for the warmer color temperature: I do use it. I prefer it warmer because it burns my eyes much less. Similarly I prefer the brightness of my phone's screen around 40%. I have lenses that "block" blue light (i.e. makes white look more yellow).
If you are a developer doing UI/UX and that sort of thing where color matters, then you probably want to disable f.lux, redshift, or whatever it is that you are using.
We could also get philosophical here and discuss qualia. Is my red your red? :)
So much to discuss!
so it's actually the opposite to the current common belief. it should be blue at night, warm during the day :)
Stop eating junk food before bed? Probably better sleep. Stop getting poked with a stick before bed? Probably better sleep. Etc.