BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Biased Writer Voice, and Availability Heuristic, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 28.2% saturation with 42 hits. Analysis detected 199 faulty-reasoning hits from 149 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57% and a BS Rank of 62% (8,494 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 61.20% of the article peer group.

It’s the turn of the 20th century, and a number of astronomers are convinced they’ve uncovered proof of life on Mars. 
Among them is Percival Lowell, who believed Mars was home to an ancient people. 
There’s also Camille Flammarion, a public intellectual who believed we could communicate with extraterrestrials by flashing signs from earth. 
Tons of characters abound, including Nikola Tesla. 
The press got caught up in the mania too, with a 1906 New York Times headline proclaiming, “There is life on the planet Mars.” 
If any of that reminds you of our present-day fascination  say, Elon Musk’s quest to colonize Mars  then you’re in for a treat. 
GUEST 
David Baron is an author, journalist, and public speaker. 
His latest book is The Martians: The True Story of an Alien Craze that Captured Turn-of-the-Century America. 
Airdate: Mar. 
25, 2026 (Rebroadcast) 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.1%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias14.1%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 16.8%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic16.8%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 20.8%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect20.8%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 4.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 16.1%KUER: 0.7%Bandwagon16.1%This article: 0.0%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 20.8%KUER: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice20.8%This article: 16.8%KUER: 1.6%Indoctrination16.8%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 28.2%KUER: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…28.2%

149 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.