> The word "debunk" does not appear on any of the 13 pages of text.
Who said the word appeared in the text? Who said the word has to appear in the text for it to be used in discussions among people?
> I have not added my own views on the subject, but merely highlighted existing words that seem to have been overlooked by some who have only read the news briefs and not the full study itself.
The words were not emphasized in the paper itself. You chose to explicitly point out certain things in order to discredit the comment you were replying to. You know exactly how your comment comes off, and by doing it you, indeed, add your own views to the subject.
"An especially pertinent question, however, is whether the effects of color described here extend to other mammals, such as humans."
=\=
"The effects of color described here extend to other mammals, such as humans."
The first is in the text. The second is an interpretation of the text.
Dismissing the content of a scientific article and replacing the existing words to support your own interpretation of the text is exactly adding your own views on the subject.
This study is but one step in the scientific process towards verifying this fact. Hopefully, the next step is taken soon and the theory is tested on humans.
Should that next paper conclude with "Blue light is not disruptive to human sleep patterns", then I would absolutely agree that debunking has been had.
In fact, since you are pushing to know my own views, I would be thrilled about it. Issues with sleep quality is something that affects me and having a concrete answer about the subject at hand would allow me to make better and more enlightened choices about steps to improve my sleep quality.
But this is not the case here, right now this would be selling the skin before having caught the bear.
Is this a good moment to slow down, analyse and ponder? Absolutely. Do test out if f.lux actually has an effect on you if you are a daily user. Do try to use another color than red in your Philips Hue sleep routine. But now is not the time to take direct actions.
...
Let's step back for a minute and imagine we were talking about a study about medication.
Let's say that an animal study came out that concluded with "An especially pertinent question, however, is whether the toxicity of acetaminophen extend to other mammals, such as humans."
I would without a doubt leave a comment highlighting the content of the paper to show the commenter that no, an animal study should not be strongly interpreted as debunking the safety of acetaminophen in humans.
Would you also write: "You chose to explicitly point out certain things in order to discredit the comment you were replying to. You know exactly how your comment comes off, and by doing it you, indeed, add your own views to the subject" in that situation?
Who said the word appeared in the text? Who said the word has to appear in the text for it to be used in discussions among people?
> I have not added my own views on the subject, but merely highlighted existing words that seem to have been overlooked by some who have only read the news briefs and not the full study itself.
The words were not emphasized in the paper itself. You chose to explicitly point out certain things in order to discredit the comment you were replying to. You know exactly how your comment comes off, and by doing it you, indeed, add your own views to the subject.