科学与数学guzey.com
《我们为什么睡觉》充满科学和事实错误
“Why We Sleep” Is Riddled with Scientific and Factual Errors
2019 — 2021，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
这篇文章由 Alexey Guzey 撰写，详细列举了马修·沃克（Matthew Walker）的畅销书《Why We Sleep》中的多处科学和事实错误，包括数据曲解、引用不当和逻辑谬误。它引发了关于科普书准确性、科学传播以及普通读者如何辨别可信信息的广泛讨论。
为什么经久不衰：它是对一本广受推崇的科普书的系统性纠错，提醒读者保持批判性思维，也折射出科学传播中专家与外行之间的认知鸿沟，因此至今仍有参考价值。
HN 评论精选
批评文章没有直接提供作者的反驳链接，有失公允。
有一点让我不太舒服：他链接了几个提到 Walker 反驳的文章，却没有直接链接到反驳本身。如果你想让人们对这本书进行批判性思考，至少应该让他们有机会看到作者对你批评的回应。
fedorareis查看英文原文
Something doesn’t quite sit right with me about him linking to a couple things that mention Walker’s rebuttal https://sleepdiplomat.wordpress.com/2019/12/19/why-we-sleep-responses-to-questions-from-readers/ but not linking to it directly. If you are trying to get people to think critically about the book it seems like they should at least be given the opportunity to see the authors response to your criticism.
对书中“睡眠债无法弥补”的说法提出实际质疑，认为过于绝对。
我对《Why We Sleep》有一个纯实际的问题。书中多次说，你无法先欠下睡眠债然后再补回来。那么如果我确实欠了睡眠债，我该怎么办？如果睡眠债会降低认知功能，而我不能通过多睡来弥补，那是否意味着每少睡一晚，我的认知功能就会永久下降？如果我关掉闹钟让身体自己决定，在睡眠不足后多睡一会儿，我的身体是在浪费时间吗？这感觉不可能是百分百正确的。
jimnotgym查看英文原文
I had a purely practical issue with "Why we sleep". The book says multiple times that you cannot run a sleep deficit and then make it up later. So what should I do if I have run a deficit? If the deficit reduces cognitive function, and I can't make it up with more sleep, does it follow that for every short nights sleep I will have a permanent reduction in cognitive function? If I turn my alarm off and let my body decide it makes me sleep for longer after a deficit, is my body wasting its time? It doesn't feel like this can be 100% true
普通读者如何判断信息可信度，不能只依赖单一信源。
那么，作为一个没有神经科学或睡眠背景的普通人，我该相信谁？这篇文章的作者简介并不能让我相信他是该领域的另一位专家。也许 Guzey 错了，也许他们都错了？我为什么要盲目相信这个页面？……当我不了解一个领域时，如何挑选好的信息？……我真的不知道如何挑选好书。……你永远无法知道真相？但只依赖一本书、一个博客、一篇文章或一个观点来建立理解，除非你幸运地第一次就找到神级信源，否则肯定会变得无知。
tayo42查看英文原文
So how do i, a regular person without a neuroscience or sleep background, know who to trust? The about page on this page doesn't lead me to believe that this is another expert in the field. Maybe Guzey got it wrong, maybe they're both wrong? Why should I take this page at face value? I guess this leads to a bigger philosophical leaning question, how do I pick out good information when I don't know the field. This has been a struggle for me, I have a recent interest in neuroscience and how it relates to consciousness. This topic seems to have a wide variety of science based, philosophy based and some real out there stuff but it gets pitches as reliable. I really don't know how to pick good books to read. I don't know how to filter out the equivalent of like being antivax in a field i dont know about. To try to answer my own questions, I guess in some way, you can't ever know the truth? But relying on one book, blog, article, view point to base your understanding will definitely lead to being uniformed unless you are lucky enough to stumble on a god source the first time.
书作为入门仍有价值，细节错误对非学术读者影响不大。
这很有趣，但我读这本书的收获并不在于某些癌症风险是否翻倍之类。我的收获是：REM/NREM、浅睡和深睡 NREM 是干什么的？一些关于清醒梦的迷人研究；咖啡因和安眠药的影响；睡眠卫生建议；还有一些我一时想不起来的。是的，这些内容你也能在其他地方读到，但我仍然认为这本书是很好的入门读物。不过我对这个主题没有学术兴趣，所以文章中的批评对我来说不太重要（除了对准确性有些不安）。如果你是医学、认知科学等专业的学生，你反正应该从别处获取入门知识。
Tomte查看英文原文
That's interesting, but when reading the book my takeaways weren't really whether some cancer risks doubles or so. They were * what are REM/NREM, light and deep NREM sleep for? * some fascinating study about lucid dreaming * effects of coffein and sleep medication * sleep hygiene tips * some other things I can't recall right now Yes, you can read about these things elsewhere, too, but I still think the book is a tremendous introduction to the subject. But I don't have an academic interest in the subject, so the criticisms in the article do not matter much to me (except for some uneasy feeling about accuracy in general). If you're a student of medicine, cognitive sciences or whatever, you should probably get your introduction elsewhere anyway.
历次讨论
同类还值得读
如果月球只有 1 像素：一个极其精确的太阳系模型（2014）
If the moon were only 1 pixel: A tediously accurate solar system model (2014)
一个网页版太阳系模型，以“如果月亮只有 1 像素”的真实比例呈现：你必须一路横向滚动，才能体会行星之间空旷到何等程度。
科学与数学上首页 7 次 · 2014–2025joshworth.com编辑精选沉浸式线性代数（2016）
Immersive Linear Algebra (2016)
《Immersive Linear Algebra》是一本完全免费、开放在线的线性代数“超文本教科书”，其最大特色是大量可交互的图形：读者可以直接拖动、操作图中的向量、矩阵和变换…
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2015–2024immersivemath.com编辑精选如何将贝果切成两个相连的半环（2009）
How to Slice a Bagel into Two Linked Halves (2009)
数学家 George Hart 的经典教程，演示如何用一刀把贝果切成两个相互扣住的环，并附上切割步骤与数学原理。
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2009–2022georgehart.com“犹太问题”：一组用于歧视的数学题
Jewish problems
一篇 arXiv 论文，整理并讨论苏联时期犹太学生在申请大学数学系时被问到的特殊数学难题：这些题往往有简单解法却极难想到，被用作面试中拒绝犹太考生的手段。
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2011–2021arxiv.org你的身体并非为长久而造：人类死亡率数据的一课
Your body wasn’t built to last: a lesson from human mortality rates
文章从人类死亡率随年龄变化的统计规律出发，解释身体并非为长久使用而设计：年轻时死亡风险较低，之后随年龄近似指数上升，像复杂系统在不断累积损伤。
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2009–2018gravityandlevity.wordpress.com