NPR85%

A microbiologist explains why we age and die 17%

By Regina G. Barber0% Jessica Yung0% Emily Kwong0% Rebecca Ramirez0%

10/29/2024, 7:00:20 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Loss Aversion, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 23.2% saturation with 39 hits. Analysis detected 162 faulty-reasoning hits from 168 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 32.3% and a BS Rank of 17% (14,093 of 16,813 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 83.80% of the article peer group.

Humans have seen a significant increase in life expectancy over the past 200 years  but not in overall lifespan. 
Nobody on record has lived past 122 years. 
So, for this early Halloween episode, host Regina G. 
Barber asks: Why do we age and why do we die? 
Microbiologist Venki Ramakrishnan explains some of the mechanisms inside of our bodies that contribute to our decay  and tells us if it's possible to intervene in the process. 
Check out Venki Ramakrishnan's book Why We Die. 
Curious about other biology news? 
Email us at shortwave@npr.org and we might cover your topic on a future episode! 
Listen to Short Wave on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. 
Listen to every episode of Short Wave sponsor-free and support our work at NPR by signing up for Short Wave+ at plus.npr.org/shortwave. 
This episode was produced by Jessica Yung and edited by Rebecca Ramirez. 
The facts were checked by Tyler Jones. 
The audio engineer was Kwesi Lee. 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
4.8%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
0%
Loss Aversion
13.1%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
0%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
22%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
4.8%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
8.3%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
11.9%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Indoctrination
8.3%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
23.2%

168 words analyzed.

Analysis

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