Does Science Really Have the Final Word on Sleep?
It’s often in the deep, quiet hours of early morning—say, around 4:00 a.m.—that some of us find ourselves wide awake, alert, and creative. For those whose natural sleep rhythms don’t fit the rigid ideal of an uninterrupted eight-hour block, this experience can clash with what we’ve been taught about “healthy” sleep. We’re constantly told that any deviation is a disruption or even a health risk, usually based on the modern interpretation of the circadian rhythm1.
For many, the science is indispensable. Our internal ~24-hour biological clocks—driven by clock genes and tuned by light—help regulate everything from hormones and metabolism to mood and alertness2.
But science, when turned into dogma, can become scientism: the tendency to elevate a scientific model—what’s true for the statistical average—into an unquestionable, universal standard. In doing so, it can police the natural diversity of human experience.
The Social Construction of 'Perfect' Sleep
One of the biggest myths about sleep might be that eight continuous hours at night is a biological necessity. Some say that ideal is a social construct. It only became common with the rise of the Industrial Revolution and the spread of artificial light3.
Before that, many cultures practiced biphasic sleep—a first and second sleep separated by a period of wakefulness called “the watch”4. People would rise briefly to pray, read, reflect, or even visit neighbours before returning to bed. Elsewhere in the world, cultures have long embraced the siesta—a midday rest that remains a normal, restorative part of daily life in places like India and South America5.
This historical and cultural variety suggests that healthy sleep is not biologically fixed but functionally adaptive. The right pattern is the one that allows each person to live well and meet the demands of their life—not necessarily the one that fits an industrial clock.
When Wakefulness Becomes 'Pathological'
The critique of scientism becomes clearest when we look at how the sleep ideal gets commercialised. Modern marketing often implies that anyone who deviates from the eight-hour standard is “suffering from a disorder.” This turns one kind of sleep into a moral benchmark—and conveniently creates a market for products promising to “fix” it.
For those who naturally wake during the night, this message can cause needless anxiety. Ironically, it’s often the worry—not the wakefulness—that harms health. Once that anxiety is removed, non-standard sleep can become an asset, offering quiet hours for writing, problem-solving, or contemplation.
History backs this up. Figures such as Winston Churchill and other famous people with irregular sleep cycles used their wakeful hours to fuel productivity and insight6. In spiritual traditions, too, many have deliberately shortened or fragmented sleep to make time for prayer or meditation—placing higher value on inner work than on the “perfect” biological schedule.
It’s also worth noting that sleep quality matters at least as much as sleep quantity. Fragmented sleep or frequent wake-ups can impair deep sleep phases and REM, which are important for memory consolidation and overall regeneration7.
Science, Policy, and the Limits of Averages
The tension between individual experience and collective data also plays out in public policy—such as the debate over Daylight Saving Time (DST).
As a recent article noted, “The time to reset clocks is almost here, but critics of the practice raise an alarm.” Circadian science suggests that the bi-annual clock shift harms the population average—with measurable spikes in heart attacks and traffic accidents after the change8. That’s a good example where science could inform policy.
But when we extend those findings to claim that any deviation from a solar-aligned schedule is unhealthy, we cross into scientism. The data describe what’s optimal on average, not what’s necessary—or even best—for every individual.
Moreover, while population-level data show that misalignment of sleep/wake cycles (shift work, erratic schedules) is associated with higher health risks such as cardiometabolic disease, cancer, mood disorders, and immune dysregulation, this does not mean that every non-standard sleep pattern is pathological. What matters is how consistently the individual rhythm functions, how aligned it is with the person’s demands, and whether the person is well-rested and capable of functioning9.
In the end, circadian science gives us the blueprint for the general human machine. Yet each person still has their own internal rhythm. The healthiest pattern is not necessarily the textbook one, but the one that is functional, consistent, and at peace—even if that means your most inspired hours begin before dawn.
References
- Epstein L, Hassan SM. “Why your sleep and wake cycles affect your mood.” Harvard Health Blog, May 13 2020. Link
- Figueiro MG et al. “Spotlight on Circadian Rhythms and Sleep.” PMC, 2023. Link
- “History of sleep: what was normal?” News-Medical.net, May 2017. Link
- Siegel J. “Segmented Sleep in Preindustrial Societies.” Current Biology, 2015. Link
- “What Is a Biphasic Sleep Schedule?” Sleep Foundation. Link
- Davies C. “From Aristotle to Einstein: a brief history of power nappers.” The Guardian, Aug 27 2021. Link
- “How a Polyphasic Sleep Schedule Affects Your Health.” Verywell Health. Link
- “Daylight Saving Time – Effects on health.” Wikipedia. Link
- Fishbein A B et al. “Circadian disruption and human health.” PMC, 2021. Link
Comments