Scientists get clearest view yet of a spreading seafloor 27%

By Sam Macdonald0%

7/8/2026, 12:30:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Emotion, and Optimism Bias, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 33.2% saturation with 228 hits. Analysis detected 1,209 faulty-reasoning hits from 687 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38.1% and a BS Rank of 27% (16,174 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 73.90% of the article peer group.

Scientists get clearest view yet of a spreading seafloor 
A rare eruption in the Indian Ocean let researchers capture one of the clearest views yet of a seafloor spreading event 
By Sam Macdonald edited by Andrea Thompson 
A map of the world showing the tectonic plates and a mid-ocean ridge down the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. 
Join Our Community of Science Lovers! 
Kilometers below the ocean's surface, Earth's seafloors are on the move. 
Across a massive network of underwater mountain chains known as mid-ocean ridges, tectonic plates slowly pull apart, belching molten rock at the spreading seams. 
As this lava cools, it forms new oceanic crust-literally the world's largest game of The Floor Is Lava. 
We know how this new ocean crust is built over millions of years , but we've rarely caught one of the brief episodes that actually does the work. 
Now, in one of the clearest observations ever made, scientists have watched one of those moments unfold in real time and with unprecedented detail in an active seafloor spreading event in the Indian Ocean. 
Their findings were reported in a new study published Wednesday in Nature . 
On supporting science journalism 
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . 
By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. 
"We generally don't get the chance to be there at the right time and the right place to see these things," says Hannah F. 
Mark, an assistant research professor at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, who was not involved in the study. 
The feat required a small armada of instruments-acoustic transponders, pressure gauges, hydrophones (underwater seismic microphones) and geodetic beacons-deployed across a tectonically active stretch of a mid-ocean ridge. 
After installing the instruments, the team simply had to wait. 
But they didn't have to wait long. 
Less than two months later a swarm of earthquakes ripped along the ridge. 
The seafloor dropped about four meters (13 feet), the plates pulled apart by more than one meter (three feet), and up to 160 million cubic meters of lava-the volume of more than 60 Great Pyramids of Giza -erupted onto the seabed. 
"We were expecting to measure a few centimeters of horizontal displacement and maybe a few centimeters of vertical displacement," says lead author Jean-Yves Royer of the Laboratory of Planetology and Geodynamics of Nantes in France. 
In a single event, the ridge accommodated nearly 40 years' worth of plate motion. 
It's an important distinction: though the plates separate at about the speed fingernails grow, that growth isn't smooth. 
Instead decades of motion can be released in sudden bursts of earthquakes and volcanic activity. 
Besides the remarkable feat of even capturing the event, the research also sheds light on a longstanding question about how the seafloor spreads. 
Scientists have long suspected that many faults at mid-ocean ridges don't move entirely through earthquakes. 
Instead much of the motion occurs through aseismic slip-a slow, silent release of strain that produces little or no seismic shaking. 
Whether that quiet slipping is directly triggered by the movement of magma, however, has remained an open question. 
This event suggests it is. 
By comparing the measured movement of the faults with the motion inferred from the earthquakes, the researchers found a striking mismatch. 
The fault shifted by roughly two meters, but the earthquakes accounted for only 10 to 20 centimeters of that motion. 
The rest happened silently, after the rocks had already fractured. 
"That was a surprise," Royer says. 
"It's not just that there is aseismic slip," Mark says. 
"It's that it happens at the same time as-and probably is causally linked to-the magma." 
If that interpretation is correct, it could explain why faults along mid-ocean ridges produce fewer earthquakes than scientists would otherwise expect. 
Some of the plates' motion, it seems, happens too quietly for us to notice-unless someone has the foresight to leave an array of instruments on the seafloor and the good fortune to have Earth put on a show. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.9%Sam Macdonald: 2.3%Scientific American: 3.0%Confirmation Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.8%Sam Macdonald: 3.5%Scientific American: 2.6%Availability Heuristic10.8%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.0%Scientific American: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 9.0%Sam Macdonald: 2.5%Scientific American: 0.4%Hindsight Bias9.0%This article: 3.6%Sam Macdonald: 1.3%Scientific American: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias3.6%This article: 16.6%Sam Macdonald: 10.2%Scientific American: 4.2%Framing Effect16.6%This article: 1.9%Sam Macdonald: 0.8%Scientific American: 0.3%Loss Aversion1.9%This article: 6.3%Sam Macdonald: 1.1%Scientific American: 0.9%Status Quo Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 11.1%Sam Macdonald: 8.4%Scientific American: 3.0%Optimism Bias11.1%This article: 2.6%Sam Macdonald: 0.5%Scientific American: 1.1%Pessimism Bias2.6%This article: 1.9%Sam Macdonald: 0.6%Scientific American: 3.3%Negativity Bias1.9%This article: 3.3%Sam Macdonald: 0.6%Scientific American: 0.3%Self-Serving Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 5.5%Sam Macdonald: 1.0%Scientific American: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Sam Macdonald: 1.4%Scientific American: 0.9%Halo Effect3.3%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.9%Sam Macdonald: 1.6%Scientific American: 0.8%Recency Bias4.9%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.1%Sam Macdonald: 1.1%Scientific American: 4.3%Appeal to Authority4.1%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 1.2%Scientific American: 1.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.7%Sam Macdonald: 1.5%Scientific American: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.7%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.3%Sam Macdonald: 0.6%Scientific American: 0.6%Bandwagon3.3%This article: 13.5%Sam Macdonald: 5.1%Scientific American: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion13.5%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.8%Scientific American: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.4%Sam Macdonald: 3.7%Scientific American: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.4%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.8%Scientific American: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.2%Sam Macdonald: 0.4%Scientific American: 0.3%Composition/Division2.2%This article: 8.4%Sam Macdonald: 1.5%Scientific American: 1.0%Anecdotal8.4%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 33.2%Sam Macdonald: 6.4%Scientific American: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)33.2%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.4%Sam Macdonald: 1.5%Scientific American: 0.7%Unattributed Quote4.4%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.6%Scientific American: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 8.2%Sam Macdonald: 5.6%Scientific American: 4.3%Biased Writer Voice8.2%This article: 0.6%Sam Macdonald: 0.6%Scientific American: 1.8%Indoctrination0.6%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Macdonald: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Sam Macdonald: 4.5%Scientific American: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.1%

687 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers17%attributed speech570writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageSam Macdonald • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageHannah F. • 24 words • 100.0% coverageLamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageJean-Yves Royer • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJean-Yves Royer • 6 words • 100.0% coverageMark • 10 words • 0.0% coverageMark • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Hannah F.

100%flagged-word coverage
24 attributed words21% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Hannah F.: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.8 ptsWriter: 9.8%Hannah F.: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -7.4 ptsWriter: 7.4%Hannah F.: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-0.7 ptsWriter: 0.7%Hannah F.: 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.