I assume then you think these oysters close their shells for fun?
The article makes it clear that the oysters are not trying to avoid moon light. Whatever causes them to open and close their shells, is clearly not a fear of any danger in the light. It could easily be something as simple as more abundant food during the full moon, and less abundant during new moon, and they need to open wider when there's less food. There's zero evidence that they're afraid of moon light. And there's abundant evidence that people expose themselves to moon light with no ill effects.
Anomaly-hunting is not science.
It makes no such thing clear. It simply says that lack of the light does not affect them; this would make sense if it was a learned behavior or if it developed due to a queue that the danger would be likely to present itself. Perhaps tides.
The article states:
"So why would the oysters care about the phases of the moon? Laura Payton, a co-author of the study from the University of Bordeaux, tells Davis at The Guardian she has a guess. “We know that oysters open their valves when there is food,” she says, and previous research has shown that the movement of plankton, which oysters filter out of seawater and consume, is influenced by moonlight."
It mentions nothing about 'danger', 'harmful', whatever. You literally are making up the notion that "oysters are afraid of moonlight..." or the like based upon nothing.
It does mention nothing about that. But I am making up my "guess" as much so as she made up her "guess." Mine obviously fits within the argument I am making, and hers her argument. Funny enough, the fact that plankton is influenced by moonlight also supports my general hypothesis. As things are stated, we seem to be on even ground.
Not at all. You are claiming that moonlight is dangerous to people, and supporting this with an observation about bivalve mollusks.
However, I applaud your honesty in admitting that you are just guessing. One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is to make an observation for which there is not a clear understanding, and concluding that some explanation out of left field with no evidence at all must be the true one. The classic example is, "I saw a light in the sky. If you can't tell me exactly what it was, then it must have been a flying saucer from the planet Bogash 12 with extraterrestrial squirrels who are here to steal coconuts."
In this case, you note a correlation between oysters and the phases of the moon, and you assert that it must mean that moon light is harmful. A thousand other explanations are more likely.
You also employ the false-equivalents fallacy when you say that your theory that oysters are afraid of moon light is equal to Payton's theory that they respond to the presence of plankton.