Professor Christian Cajochen, a chronobiologist at the University of Basel, has found that those who had come to his sleep lab during a full moon took five minutes longer to fall asleep; had 20 minutes less sleep; and spent 30% less time in deep sleep than others who came when themoon wasn’t full. They also had lower levels of a hormone that regulates sleep.
In my own sleep lab I find that I sleep less when wolves are baying or when I have had a second tipple of the single malt. I personally discovered that the hormone that regulates my sleep has virtually disappeared and my grumpiness has increased by 151.67% since 1939.
Epicureans should approach such scientific data with moderation.
I think that Professor Cajochen’s science is as child’s play compared to your path-breaking insights and mathematics (e.g., 151.67%.) There’s a Nobel prize in your future, I’m sure of it
I am a little stumped. As a novice epicurean, I am confused about the approach to scientific data expected of me. To approach it with moderation, infers that I can inspect and investigate and evaluate ‘not too much, and not too little’. How much data is ‘not too much and not too little’ I wonder? How much is the moderate amount of evaluation? With only a moderate inspection , how will I know the data is valid, reliable and representative of the population involved?
I realise that Epicurus did not live in a scientific age. However, in this age where the approach to scientific data demands not a moderate, but a rigorous, hypothetico-deductive, empirical, peer reviewed approach, I suggest that my moderate approach should be directed towards Epicurus, and not towards scientific data.
I assure Jane Dean that all my postings are peer reviewed (or is it pier reviewed?) and hypothetico-deductive. All I am saying is that, pontifications should be treated with the empirical reservations they deserve and that Epicureans, having on average an IQ 109.43% higher on average than others, allowing for nationality and gender, should maintain a healthy suspicion of everyone claiming to have the answer to the meaning of life.
I bear witness to the truth of rhanrott’s claim. I’m an old pier and review most of his hypothetico’s. I occasionally challenge his low-ball figures. For example, he vastly underestimates the average Epicurean IQ, pegging it at only a 109.43% (slightly higher for commenters.)
Still, I’ve often observed his mind working at teraFlop speed (1 quadrillion mathematical computations per second.)
Would that Ms. Jane Dean visited the big city on the Potomac someday.
Correction to the above: Mr. H. works at teraFLOP speed, significantly faster the the lower-case number. I believe he took a MOOC to reach those speeds and it shows.