What lies beneath? The new era of Earth imaging ⁠85%

6/18/2026, 1:18:37 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Appeal to Emotion, and Indoctrination, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 59% saturation with 79 hits. Analysis detected 473 faulty-reasoning hits from 134 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 76.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠85% (3,329 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 84.80% of the article peer group.

For decades, geoscientists looked beneath the Earth’s surface as if peering through frosted glass. 
Today, a revolution in seismic imaging is revealing the structures beneath our feet in unprecedented detail. 
In this New Scientist CoLab podcast sponsored by Viridien, meet the geophysicists pioneering these breakthroughs. 
Using the data in sound waves reflected from structures up to 20 kilometers deep, these scientists are now creating spectacular 3D images of the Earth’s crust in high resolution. 
Watch or listen to this podcast to hear directly from the brilliant minds whose work is transforming how we explore natural resources, locate offshore wind farms and manage energy security on a global scale. 
Read More from New Scientist CoLab: How geophysicists are reverse engineering the Earth 
Find out more: viridiengroup.com 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%New Scientist: 1.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 2.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 33.6%New Scientist: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias33.6%This article: 4.5%New Scientist: 5.8%Framing Effect4.5%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 10.4%New Scientist: 0.2%Status Quo Bias10.4%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 59.0%New Scientist: 6.6%Optimism Bias59.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.4%New Scientist: 1.9%Negativity Bias10.4%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 11.2%New Scientist: 0.6%In-Group Bias11.2%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 25.4%New Scientist: 7.3%Halo Effect25.4%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.9%New Scientist: 0.4%Recency Bias11.9%This article: 4.5%New Scientist: 0.3%Primacy Effect4.5%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.9%New Scientist: 13.9%Appeal to Authority11.9%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 3.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 25.4%New Scientist: 0.7%Bandwagon25.4%This article: 47.0%New Scientist: 5.1%Appeal to Emotion47.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 1.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 1.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 11.9%New Scientist: 3.7%Biased Writer Voice11.9%This article: 36.6%New Scientist: 1.9%Indoctrination36.6%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 49.3%New Scientist: 20.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…49.3%

134 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers24%attributed speech102writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageNew Scientist CoLab • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageNew Scientist CoLab • 13 words • 100.0% coverageViridien • 4 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

New Scientist CoLab

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words88% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +66.7 ptsWriter: 33.3%New Scientist CoLab: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination+20.2 ptsWriter: 33.3%New Scientist CoLab: 53.6%53.6%Biased Writer Voice-15.7 ptsWriter: 15.7%New Scientist CoLab: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.