> OMG didn't expect to see the "I know this is true and I don't need researchers telling me otherwise" argument here.
And, you didn't see that here. That you would even think that shows that you didn't read what was written.
It is ridiculous to wait for what others say about whether dark or light mode strains one's eyes more, since each person already has a pair of eyes to test what works for them.
Which, to be honest, is just a more contrived way of saying "I know this is true and I don't need researchers telling me otherwise". It is only anecdotal evidence in any case.
> I don't need to read other's research about dark mode to know how it lessens eye-strain. I have performed the experiment myself with my own eyes.
That is exactly the same as "I know this is true and I don't need researchers telling me otherwise".
> It is ridiculous to wait for what others say about whether dark or light mode strains one's eyes more, since each person already has a pair of eyes to test what works for them.
That's not how having eyes works - you are physically incapable of measuring eye strain yourself without external equipment and rigorous scientific process. Your subjective perception of reality is not objective reality itself, and your perceived comfort level is not consistent with the actual strain being put on your body, full stop.
Your logic of "each person already has a pair of eyes to test what works for them" directly implies that things that feel good are good for you, which is objectively not how the body works.
Can I interest you in some homeopathic remedies or a bottle of snake oil? Maybe prayer? History is full of people who thought/think their bias and anecdotal evidence is good enough.
Those are some very poor comparisons. Maybe if someone is claiming that dark mode or light mode have long-term effects on your health, but what people are actually claiming is just that they find one or the other more comfortable. There’s no meaningful scientific “truth” to that beyond a person’s own stated preference, just like there’s no scientifically most comfortable pair of pants or best color of wall paint. For what it’s worth, my preference of pants is definitely biased and based on anecdotal evidence. I have a pair of legs to test it with myself.
These comparisons are entirely correct and accurate.
The linked article is about objective measures of eye strain and health. Unless someone explicitly says otherwise, it's very reasonable to assume that they're also discussing those objective measures instead of subjective perception. If not - they're completely off-topic and they shouldn't be commenting here.
In particular, the comment earlier in this thread "I don't need to read other's research about dark mode to know how it lessens eye-strain. I have performed the experiment myself with my own eyes." doesn't say "my subjective perception of eye-strain", so we can assume that they're referring to the objective measurements, as is the actual topic for the thread.
I think this illustrates well how we have to be careful with our arguments around quack medicine.
The problem with "works for me" is not that that argument is invalid in and of itself. The problem is that homeopaths don't actually know that it works for them. What healed your infection and what did and didn't help is almost impossible to know.
Dark mode is very different. "do I have eyestrain after 4 hours of work" is easy to answer, and dark mode can be toggled with a single click to see how it affects you.
“Science” is such an empty word, though. “Knowledge” and “research” are more concrete, and you can always ask whether knowledge is reliable and where its limit lie, and whether research is trustworthy.
