Response to: Reflections on ‘Have we lost sleep?’

IF 0.9 2区 哲学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Medical History Pub Date : 2024-09-16 DOI:10.1017/mdh.2024.18
Niall Patrick Boyce
{"title":"Response to: Reflections on ‘Have we lost sleep?’","authors":"Niall Patrick Boyce","doi":"10.1017/mdh.2024.18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>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 <span>Medical History</span> 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":18275,"journal":{"name":"Medical History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/mdh.2024.18","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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 Medical History 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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
回应:我们失眠了吗?
我想感谢埃基尔希教授对 "我们失眠了吗?"的思考,其中有几点是我在《2023 年医学史》上发表的原稿经过他的同行评审后已经在论文中回应过的(埃基尔希教授在通常的双盲评审过程中自愿表明自己是评审者)。我承认,我论文的重点是埃基尔希 2001 年的原著;如果我没有像他希望的那样参与他的后续出版物,那只是因为我没有像他那样看到他在这一主题上的思想和研究的实质性发展。事实上,埃基尔奇目前的评论基本上是同样的内容:一长串参考文献和引文,但很少对任何单个资料来源进行详细讨论。正如我的论文所展示的那样,简短引文中看似毫不含糊的证据,放在上下文中就会变得不那么清晰。如果我使用的 "可能 "一词比 Ekirch 希望的要多,我很抱歉。我希望,这反映了我在处理工业革命前的睡眠这一复杂问题时健康的不确定性和知识上的谦逊。延伸埃基尔奇的比喻,如果他和我试图拼凑的拼图可以是猫或狗的形态,那么它的真实形态有可能既不是猫也不是狗。在前工业化时期的欧洲,人们在夜里醒来的程度、这种醒来的持续时间,以及对此的主要文化态度--关注、接受或漠不关心--考虑到所涵盖的时间相对较长,以及必须考虑的社会、文化和个体多样性,避免一概而论和一概而论似乎是明智之举。我只能再说一遍,我认为收集更多简短的参考文献,有选择性地引用全球范围内相对较小的生理学研究和人类学证据,不太可能提供更清晰的信息,更不用说明确的答案了。我欢迎埃基尔希教授对这一讨论所做的贡献,因为这表明近代早期欧洲的分段睡眠问题绝不是一个定论,而是一个持续争论的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Medical History
Medical History 医学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical History is a refereed journal devoted to all aspects of the history of medicine and health, with the goal of broadening and deepening the understanding of the field, in the widest sense, by historical studies of the highest quality. It is also the journal of the European Association for the History of Medicine and Health. The membership of the Editorial Board, which includes senior members of the EAHMH, reflects the commitment to the finest international standards in refereeing of submitted papers and the reviewing of books. The journal publishes in English, but welcomes submissions from scholars for whom English is not a first language; language and copy-editing assistance will be provided wherever possible.
期刊最新文献
Institutional care and education: circulation of knowledge about epilepsy in Sweden 1915–40 Response to: Reflections on ‘Have we lost sleep?’ Culpeper’s herbal The English Physitian and its debt to apothecary John Parkinson The first recorded outbreak of epidemic dropsy, 1877–80: Climate, empire, and colonial medical science between India, Bengal, and Mauritius The Medical and Physical Journal and the construction of medical journalism in Britain, 1733–1803
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1