First new open-ocean subsea research habitat in 40 years launched 74%

6/30/2026, 11:01:17 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Overconfidence Bias, and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 33% saturation with 59 hits. Analysis detected 327 faulty-reasoning hits from 179 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 66.1% and a BS Rank of 74% (5,587 of 21,109 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.50% of the article peer group.

In this video, New Scientist CoLab partners with ocean engineering company DEEP to follow the deployment of Vanguard, the first open-ocean, ambient-pressure subsea research habitat built in over forty years. 
The site is Tennessee Reef off the coast of the Florida Keys. 
Vanguard will allow scientists and researchers to break free from the strict time limits of traditional surface diving. 
Featuring an integrated moon pool for entry and exit, it lets aquanauts camp out in the marine canopy of the ocean, embarking on daily 6-to-8-hour dives and processing scientific samples directly inside the habitat without bringing them to the surface. 
Welcome to the new era of aquatic humanity. 
Timestamps: 
0:00  Introduction: The Goal to Make Humans Aquatic 
0:35  What is Vanguard? 
1:15  Undersea Technology & The Ambient Moon Pool 
2:10  Deploying at Tennessee Reef 
2:45  Revolutionizing Marine Science & Coral Restoration 
3:30  Space Analog & Elite Team Training 
4:15  The Future: Inspiring the Next Generation of Explorers 
FIND OUT MORE at DEEP.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: 22.3%New Scientist: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias22.3%This article: 33.0%New Scientist: 5.8%Framing Effect33.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 19.0%New Scientist: 6.6%Optimism Bias19.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 1.9%Negativity Bias0.0%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: 4.5%New Scientist: 0.6%In-Group Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%New Scientist: 7.3%Halo Effect4.5%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: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.4%Recency Bias0.0%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: 0.0%New Scientist: 13.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%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: 10.1%New Scientist: 3.2%Hasty Generalization10.1%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 14.5%New Scientist: 5.1%Appeal to Emotion14.5%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 10.1%New Scientist: 1.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.1%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: 5.0%New Scientist: 1.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.0%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: 26.8%New Scientist: 3.7%Biased Writer Voice26.8%This article: 8.9%New Scientist: 1.9%Indoctrination8.9%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: 19.6%New Scientist: 20.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…19.6%

179 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker2.8%attributed speech174writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageDEEP • 5 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

DEEP

100%flagged-word coverage
5 attributed words100% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +82.8 ptsWriter: 17.2%DEEP: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-27.6 ptsWriter: 27.6%DEEP: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-9.2 ptsWriter: 9.2%DEEP: 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.