‘The Odyssey’ and the Search for Historical Truth, with James Diggle and John Underhill ⁠56%

By Aaron MacLean⁠89%

7/17/2026, 9:01:39 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Representativeness Heuristic, Appeal to Authority, and Confirmation Bias, with Anchoring Bias as the most egregious example at 59.4% saturation with 41 hits. Analysis detected 193 faulty-reasoning hits from 69 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠56% (9,818 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 55.10% of the article peer group.

James Diggle, emeritus professor of Greek and Latin at Cambridge University, and John Underhill, professor of geoscience and energy transition at the University of Aberdeen, join School of War to discuss their decades-long search for the real Ithaca of Homer’s Odyssey. 
Based on their recent Antigone journal article, “In Search of Ithaca,” they explain w… 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 20.3%Aaron MacLean: 6.8%The FP: 5.8%Confirmation Bias20.3%This article: 59.4%Aaron MacLean: 8.5%The FP: 0.9%Anchoring Bias59.4%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 2.3%The FP: 4.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 59.4%Aaron MacLean: 2.6%The FP: 1.8%Representativeness Heuristic59.4%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 3.5%The FP: 1.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.5%The FP: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 20.3%Aaron MacLean: 18.7%The FP: 9.5%Framing Effect20.3%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 2.6%The FP: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 1.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 5.3%The FP: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 9.1%The FP: 10.8%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 1.9%The FP: 1.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 20.3%Aaron MacLean: 2.8%The FP: 2.1%Recency Bias20.3%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 1.9%The FP: 2.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 1.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 59.4%Aaron MacLean: 21.0%The FP: 3.2%Appeal to Authority59.4%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 6.7%The FP: 2.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 5.5%The FP: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 1.5%The FP: 8.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 8.8%The FP: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 3.8%The FP: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 5.7%The FP: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 3.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 20.3%Aaron MacLean: 0.9%The FP: 2.5%Unattributed Quote20.3%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 4.6%The FP: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 20.3%Aaron MacLean: 15.4%The FP: 15.0%Biased Writer Voice20.3%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 1.5%The FP: 2.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 3.4%The FP: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 3.4%The FP: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 13.9%The FP: 4.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

69 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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