First new open-ocean subsea research habitat in 40 years launched 50%

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

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Halo Effect, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 35% saturation with 75 hits. Analysis detected 463 faulty-reasoning hits from 214 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50% and a BS Rank of 50% (10,775 of 21,172 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 50.90% of the article peer group.

The ocean floor is a vast source of potentially revolutionary scientific discovery  yet it remains largely inaccessible. 
For many marine scientists, they could only dream of living and working underwater. 
That changes now. 
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: 4.7%New Scientist: 2.1%Availability Heuristic4.7%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 6.1%New Scientist: 0.2%Hindsight Bias6.1%This article: 8.4%New Scientist: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias8.4%This article: 14.0%New Scientist: 5.8%Framing Effect14.0%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: 17.3%New Scientist: 6.6%Optimism Bias17.3%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: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 22.4%New Scientist: 7.3%Halo Effect22.4%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: 2.3%New Scientist: 0.4%Recency Bias2.3%This article: 4.7%New Scientist: 0.3%Primacy Effect4.7%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: 14.0%New Scientist: 13.9%Appeal to Authority14.0%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: 6.1%New Scientist: 3.2%Hasty Generalization6.1%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 27.1%New Scientist: 5.1%Appeal to Emotion27.1%This article: 1.4%New Scientist: 0.9%Begging the Question1.4%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: 8.4%New Scientist: 1.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.4%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: 4.2%New Scientist: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection4.2%This article: 30.4%New Scientist: 3.7%Biased Writer Voice30.4%This article: 9.8%New Scientist: 1.9%Indoctrination9.8%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: 35.0%New Scientist: 20.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…35.0%

214 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers16%attributed speech179writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageNew Scientist CoLab • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% 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 • 100.0% 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 • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageDEEP • 5 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

New Scientist CoLab

100%flagged-word coverage
30 attributed words86% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +77.7 ptsWriter: 22.3%New Scientist CoLab: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-36.3 ptsWriter: 36.3%New Scientist CoLab: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-11.7 ptsWriter: 11.7%New Scientist CoLab: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.0 ptsWriter: 5.0%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.