Suppr超能文献

对《我们失眠了吗?》的反思的回应

Response to: Reflections on 'Have we lost sleep?'.

作者信息

Boyce Niall Patrick

机构信息

School of Creative Arts, Culture and Communication, Birkbeck University of London, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

出版信息

Med Hist. 2024 Jul;68(3):263-264. doi: 10.1017/mdh.2024.18. Epub 2024 Sep 16.

Abstract

I would like to thank Professor Ekirch for his reflections on 'Have we lost sleep?', which contain several points that I have already responded to within the paper following his peer review of my original submission to in 2023 (Professor Ekirch having voluntarily identified himself as a reviewer in a normally double-blind process). I acknowledge that the focus of my paper was on Ekirch's original work from 2001; if I did not engage as he would have wished with his subsequent publications, this was simply because I do not perceive the same substantial developments in his thinking and research on the subject that he does. Indeed, the present critique by Ekirch amounts essentially to more of the same: a long list of references and quotes but little detailed discussion of any individual source. As my paper demonstrates, seemingly unambiguous evidence from a brief quotation can become less clear-cut when placed in context. I am sorry if I deploy the word 'might' more than Ekirch would like. This reflects, I hope, a healthy degree of uncertainty and intellectual humility in my approach to the complex issue of pre-industrial sleep. To extend Ekirch's metaphor, if the jigsaw puzzle that both he and I are trying to assemble can take the form of a cat or a dog, it is possible that its true form is neither animal. The extent to which people woke in the night in pre-industrial Europe, the duration of such awakening, and the predominant cultural attitude towards this-concern, acceptance, or indifference-are topics about which it would seem wise to avoid sweeping statements and generalisations, given the relatively long period covered and the social, cultural, and individual diversity that must be taken into consideration. I can only repeat that I think amassing more brief references, and selectively citing relatively small physiological studies and anthropological evidence from global settings, is unlikely to provide much clarity, let alone definitive answers. I welcome Professor Ekirch's contribution to this discussion as an indication that the question of segmented sleep in early modern Europe is by no means settled but is a matter of ongoing debate.

摘要

我要感谢埃基尔希教授对《我们失去了睡眠吗?》的思考,其中有几点我已经在论文中针对他在2023年对我最初投稿进行同行评审时作出了回应(在通常的双盲评审过程中,埃基尔希教授自愿表明自己是评审人)。我承认我的论文重点是埃基尔希2001年的原创作品;如果我没有按照他的意愿探讨他后来的出版物,那只是因为我认为他在该主题上的思想和研究并没有他所认为的那样有重大进展。事实上,埃基尔希目前的批评本质上还是老一套:罗列了一长串参考文献和引文,但对任何单个来源都缺乏详细讨论。正如我的论文所表明的,一段简短引文中看似明确无误的证据,放在具体语境中可能就不那么确凿了。如果我使用“可能”这个词的频率超过了埃基尔希的喜好,我表示歉意。我希望这反映出在我处理前工业化时期睡眠这个复杂问题时,有适度的不确定性和学术谦逊态度。用埃基尔希的比喻来延伸一下,如果他和我都在拼的拼图可能拼成一只猫或一只狗的形状,那么它的真实形状可能既不是猫也不是这两种动物。鉴于所涵盖的时间跨度相对较长,以及必须考虑到的社会、文化和个体差异,在前工业化欧洲人们夜间醒来的程度、这种觉醒的持续时间以及对此的主要文化态度(担忧、接受或漠不关心)等话题,似乎明智的做法是避免一概而论和过度概括。我只能重申,我认为收集更多简短的参考文献,并有选择地引用来自全球背景下相对较小的生理学研究和人类学证据,不太可能带来太多清晰的认识,更不用说给出明确答案了。我欢迎埃基尔希教授对这场讨论的贡献,这表明早期现代欧洲分段睡眠的问题远未解决,仍是一个持续争论的话题。

相似文献

1
Response to: Reflections on 'Have we lost sleep?'.对《我们失眠了吗?》的反思的回应
Med Hist. 2024 Jul;68(3):263-264. doi: 10.1017/mdh.2024.18. Epub 2024 Sep 16.
6
Reflections on 'Have we lost sleep?'.对《我们失眠了吗?》的思考
Med Hist. 2024 Jul;68(3):254-262. doi: 10.1017/mdh.2024.20. Epub 2024 Sep 13.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验