My argument has nothing whatsoever to do with the contents of the article, just with the reasoning you provided.

>It seems absurd to try and vastly reduce sleep when it's not fully understood.

This is an example of faulty reasoning. People started constructing electric generators before completely understanding electromagnetism. Most scientists would actually gladly tell you that we still don't fully understand how almost anything works... that's kind of why they have job security.

If we waited to completely understand phenomena before constructing technology that uses it... we'd often not have the tech necessary to study said phenomena. We still don't have a good understanding of tribo-electricity, and yet that phenomenon is largely responsible for our knowledge that electric charges exist, and allowed for many of the first experimental static generators that kicked off our understanding of one of the fundamental forces of nature.

Contrary to the opinion put forth in your comment, technology and science are not cleanly separated from each other. In fact, technological advancement and innovation often precedes scientific explanation.

I don't like this kind of argument because it completely dismisses incremental progress, which is pretty much how science works.

In the process of attempting to modify sleep requirements, scientists will most likely learn more about how sleep works. I think people often forget that the beginning of a research program is typically some goal, and then the testing and methodology is constructed around that goal.

Most people doing cancer research have the goal of treating or curing cancer, not just learning more about it. But they end up learning more about cancer along the way, because that's how you achieve the goal of curing or treating it.

Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.

The tire rolled down the road fell.

A Florida community built to weather hurricanes endure.