• Lizardking27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I don’t think you understood most of those things correctly.

    The graphic says the circle size is based on Google search hits, not arbitrary.

    Evolution is a scientific theory, which is different than the layman’s idea of a “theory”.

    Bats are definitely not almost blind, like most nocturnal/crepuscular animals they have fairly good night vision.

    It didn’t say sugar doesn’t cause energy spikes, it says excessive consumption during childhood doesn’t contribute to hyperactive disorders.

    Your knee-jerk reaction to this post is weird. It’s okay that you didn’t know some of these things. You don’t have to try to tear it down because it made you feel dumb.

    • Fonzie!@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      No that’s exactly my point; a lot of these headlines are about as technically (in)correct as the myths they try to debunk; evolution is a theory in the scientific sense so it is a theory, sugar causes a energy spike which people tend to call hyperactivity, different bats see in different degrees and some of them rely so much on echolocation that they see much worse than humans which technically makes them medically blind.

      All of these play very heavy on the literal definition of the words. This makes a lot of these “debunked myths” moreso pedantic wordplay than they they actually debunk anything.