The Astounding Pop Mech Show: Scientists Are Seriously Debating Whether Plants Are Conscious. 100%

By PopMech Editors51%

7/17/2026, 2:42:22 PM

Keywords: Vodcast

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Confirmation Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 91.1% saturation with 82 hits. Analysis detected 507 faulty-reasoning hits from 90 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 100% and a BS Rank of 100% (95 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 99.60% of the article peer group.

What if consciousness isn't just a human trait? 
Scientists are uncovering surprising evidence that plants can sense, communicate, and adapt in ways that are prompting a fresh debate about the nature of consciousness. 
This theory is explored more deeply in a new Pop Mech story called “We May Be Surrounded by Trillions of Conscious Beings, Research Suggests—And They Aren’t Human.” 
Watch the full episode above now, and check out more installments of “The Astounding Pop Mech Show.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 57.8%PopMech Editors: 3.0%Popular Mechanics: 4.4%Confirmation Bias57.8%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.7%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 27.8%PopMech Editors: 2.4%Popular Mechanics: 3.1%Availability Heuristic27.8%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 1.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 27.8%PopMech Editors: 1.6%Popular Mechanics: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias27.8%This article: 81.1%PopMech Editors: 6.0%Popular Mechanics: 3.6%Framing Effect81.1%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 2.6%Popular Mechanics: 3.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 1.3%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 30.0%PopMech Editors: 1.4%Popular Mechanics: 5.3%Negativity Bias30.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.4%Popular Mechanics: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.3%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.3%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 42.2%PopMech Editors: 7.1%Popular Mechanics: 5.5%Appeal to Authority42.2%This article: 27.8%PopMech Editors: 0.8%Popular Mechanics: 1.6%False Dilemma27.8%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 30.0%PopMech Editors: 3.5%Popular Mechanics: 4.2%Hasty Generalization30.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 30.0%PopMech Editors: 0.4%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Bandwagon30.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.9%Popular Mechanics: 3.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 8.9%PopMech Editors: 1.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.8%Begging the Question8.9%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.5%Popular Mechanics: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 27.8%PopMech Editors: 1.3%Popular Mechanics: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)27.8%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 1.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 30.0%PopMech Editors: 2.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection30.0%This article: 42.2%PopMech Editors: 8.1%Popular Mechanics: 5.9%Biased Writer Voice42.2%This article: 8.9%PopMech Editors: 1.4%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Indoctrination8.9%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PopMech Editors: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 91.1%PopMech Editors: 9.0%Popular Mechanics: 3.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…91.1%

90 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.