> Matthew Walker's "Why We Sleep" Is Riddled with Scientific and Factual Errors
[0] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sbcmACvB6DqYXYidL/counter-th...
[0] https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/12/27/why-we-sle...
> Or get the instruments for a critical approach
What do you mean by that?
That in a "debate", you could value the proponents and rank the proposals accordingly, but it is a most difficult game for a number of reasons (that the proposals are complex; that the proponents are complex and encompassing strengths and weaknesses; that your judgement over them may be mislead; that circularly it is not clear how to (who will reliably) evaluate them etc.),
or that at some point you may want to shift the investment from the pieces of the debate to your ability to assess them critically and build the grounds for a more reliable judgement.
Just a general principle of distance from contents - heavyweights are hard to find so our ability to delegate judgement is restricted.
> ...it was read by hundreds of psychologists and neuroscientists who – I believe – also failed to find any serious issues [...] Some of the scientists wrote to me directly [including] a sleep scientist with >50 h-index who studied sleep for more than 40 years
Given that pop sci publications have a history of being slippery with the truth, and given the financial incentive to make millions off a pop sci book, and given that the claims made in the blog post are easily confirmed and checked, this appeal to authority that you've made is misplaced.