I believe what science is saying. I'm just not going to follow it. If I try to sleep without reading something my brain will start ruminating on things and then I'm definitely not getting to sleep. All my reading materials are on a screen.
It's not a settled issue. There are research papers that show evidence that blue light affects sleep, which is not the same thing as blue light makes your sleep worse.
So does it make sleep better?
It's associated with dim light you see naturally at dawn and dusk, so it makes sense that it has some effect. But exactly what isn't clear and it might be a lot of it depends on the circumstance.
I tried buying more physical books. I have a small stack of it, but I can't motivate myself to actually keep reading them. And there's always the danger that I find a page turner that'll keep me reading the entire night ...
I just listen to podcasts at a volume low enough that I have to try to listen, tires my brain out
For me i trained my mind to quiet when i hear wreck of the edmund fitzgerald. I also use sleep talk down videos, audio only, to distract my brain long enough for sleep to strangle it into submission to avoid yhe darkness.
Just bekause you believe it doesn't mean you have to obey it
How are you supposed to stop being sleepy in the morning without pulling out your phone.
It's nice to know what time it is too
Science has citations, not tweets.
Science means knowing better than trusting reports that affirm preconceived notions.
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/21/g-s1-55153/screens-and-sleep-maybe-not-so-bad
I mean, those two things aren't mutually exclusive. I can believe the science AND ALSO engage in behaviors it says are unhealthy for me.
I get why you shouldn't use it before bed but why not after waking up? If it keeps you awake shouldn't it help you wake up?
This stuff is sciencey, not science.
allegedly
you are priming your brain for distraction
that info comes from Julie Morgenstern, an organizing & productivity consultant, so I dunno how scientific it is...
Also, it's forbes
Just because I don't follow the recommendation doesn't mean I disbelieve it. Science also says I should eat better and exercise more and do less drugs 🤷♂️
Drugs are made with science
It's true in that almost every food item is made "with science" (university-educated food technicians, biochemists, engineers etc.) these days, but you hardly need science to make common drugs like alcohol, caffeine or nicotine. Coffee and tobacco are just plants, and fruit will spontaneously start fermenting all on their own.
Small rant, but people saying they believe in science is a pet peeve of mine. Belief has no place olin science.
You can't "believe" in science any more than you can "know" in your religion.
Belief and faith are the realm of the unknowable. Knowledge and fact are the realm of science.
You were doing good until the very end...
Knowledge and fact are the realm of science.
No this is wrong too. Evidence and probability are the realm of science.
When people say they "believe" in science, I think they mean they are putting their faith into the scientists performing the science. That whatever conclusion they come to after an experiment or study is the correct conclusion.
I'm sure you can find the flaw in doing so, as science is constantly being debunked. A good example that comes to mind is the alpha wolf theory.
It can be argued that while science strives to be in the realm of knowledge and fact, it doesn't always succeed in doing so. At least not in the first rounds of study. And I think that's what its strength is; being able to correct itself in the pursuit of knowledge and fact. All the same, science is run by humans, and humans are fallible. But despite that fallibility, some people are willing to put their faith into scientists because of their constant pursuit for the truth. Even if what they said yesterday got debunked today, it doesn't make yesterday's scientists any lesser. It only means we are all better for it.
I think they mean they are putting their faith into the scientists performing the science
It's not just the scientists, it's the whole process. You trust that the journals are selecting articles based on their scientific merit. You trust that the journalists reporting on the stories are doing their best to accurately summarize the scientific articles, and that if they get it wrong they'll issue a correction. You trust that when science makes it into textbooks that those textbooks are accurately summarizing and maybe simplifying the science in a fair way. You trust that teachers or professors who are explaining the science to their students are doing it faithfully and accurately.
The Alpha Wolf theory shows how that sort of thing breaks down. There was a scientific study, and at the time there was no reason to suspect it wasn't legitimate. The scientist who did the study was accurately describing what he saw. The journal that published it had no reason to doubt it was good science. The peer reviewers did their job well. It just turned out that he was studying captive wolves, and that wolves in the wild didn't behave the same way. Unfortunately, "wolves live in family units where the parents are in charge" isn't as interesting a story, so while scientists have been trying to correct the record for a while, there are still people who have been taught by "science" or at least "the modern media and educational system with science at its base" that think that there are "alpha wolves" who take charge of a pack based on being strong and aggressive.
they are putting their faith into the scientists performing the science.
This anti-science ideology is usually called scientism.
When people say they “believe” in science, I think they mean they are putting their faith into the scientists performing the science. That whatever conclusion they come to after an experiment or study is the correct conclusion.
That's literally what they mean, where "scientists" may as easily mean real scientists as charlatans.
It's still completely antagonistic to how science is practiced (if scientists behaved like that, they would never learn anything), and something closer to religion than science.
I am not smart enough to come to my own conclusions about a lot of science, so yes I must believe what the collective scientific community asserts, because I have no other way to prove things that happen. For me, that means putting my faith in their accuracy. So yes, I believe in science.
It should also be noted that there are people out there that treat science as a religion; that it is infallible, and cannot be changed, and to suggest otherwise is blasphemy. 🤷♂️
No you don't have to believe whatever you hear. You can be critical instead. You can also accept the results of science up to the boundaries of the results presented. Etc. There's absolutely no need for faith.
yes I must believe what the collective scientific community asserts... It should also be noted that there are people out there that treat science as a religion
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/believe
"To consider to be true or honest"
I don't know what you think believe means but you're wrong
Just because I believe doesn't mean I listen.
Science is totally right here, I have no doubt. It's just... that I have zero regard for my own health.
Me using phones : wow, I can sleep at 1am, great.
Me "just going to bed" : great, it's 4am and I'm still overthinking my shortcomings!
Me trying not to murder my partner who I love very much when her phone suddenly blasts out Instagram brain-rot at 11pm and I’m trying to maintain a vaguely healthy bedtime ritual.
What's this about right after waking up? (I may have struck this from memory)
I believe science, that's why I use my tablet instead
I have Delayed Sleep Phase Syndrome… light has no effect on me. Checkmate scientists!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
