How to watch a live deep-sea exploration in the Pacific 10%

By Andrew Paul38%

8/3/2026, 7:38:59 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Unattributed Quote, and Availability Heuristic, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 15.2% saturation with 59 hits. Analysis detected 436 faulty-reasoning hits from 387 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 20.2% and a BS Rank of 10% (25,521 of 28,112 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 90.80% of the article peer group.

Most people learn about deep sea discoveries in the days and weeks after marine biologists make them, but you don’t need to be aboard a research vessel to experience new finds in real-time. 
Since July 19, a crew on the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Okeanos ship has conducted regular surveys of the abyssal plains near the Cook Islands in the South Pacific Ocean. 
And if your schedule is free later today, you can join the exploration. 
On August 3 at approximately 5:30 p.m EDT, the expedition’s remotely operated vehicle (ROV) is scheduled to arrive at the seafloor after a three-hour descent. 
At a depth of nearly 3.5 miles, the pitch-black abyssal waters (and its residents) will require illumination from onboard lights. 
Over roughly four hours, the remotely operated vehicle (ROV) will examine and map the deep sea environment and water column about 0.6 miles from the boundary with American Samoa, while using onboard sensors to collect marine data. 
These include CTD-mounted (conductivity, temperature, and depth) equipment, an acoustic Doppler profiler, and already deployed Argo floats . 
The new information will help inform future exploration plans while also gaining a better understanding of the region’s current environmental health, as well as increase public awareness on conservation efforts. 
“The cruise is a scientific exploration and mapping activity that supports the Cook Islands’ understanding of its deep ocean. 
It will help build baseline knowledge of areas that remain difficult to access and not well understood,” reads the expedition’s website . 
The Cook Islands lack many natural resources apart from deep ocean minerals, and NOAA’s surveys are intended to help local Cook Islands representatives develop better plans for economic growth. 
That said, NOAA confirmed the mission does not immediately authorize any commercial seabed harvesting. 
Additional livestreams are planned nearly daily until the mission’s conclusion on August 13. 
All surveys are subject to local weather conditions. 
Update 8/4/2026 8:30 a.m. 
EDT: NOAA posted an update to social media on August 3 indicating that a technical issue prevented its vehicles from reaching the seafloor. 
The team is now working on the problem “with the hope that we’ll be back in the water soon.” 
The post How to watch a live deep-sea exploration in the Pacific appeared first on Popular Science . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 2.3%Popular Science: 1.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Andrew Paul: 1.2%Popular Science: 0.7%Anchoring Bias6.5%This article: 8.5%Andrew Paul: 2.7%Popular Science: 2.4%Availability Heuristic8.5%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.1%Popular Science: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 3.1%Popular Science: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Andrew Paul: 4.0%Popular Science: 3.0%Framing Effect8.5%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.2%Popular Science: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 11.6%Andrew Paul: 5.3%Popular Science: 3.8%Optimism Bias11.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 3.5%Popular Science: 2.7%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.4%Popular Science: 0.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Andrew Paul: 0.2%Popular Science: 0.3%In-Group Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Andrew Paul: 1.3%Popular Science: 1.6%Halo Effect7.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.0%Andrew Paul: 1.3%Popular Science: 0.8%Recency Bias1.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.7%Andrew Paul: 4.5%Popular Science: 3.4%Appeal to Authority5.7%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.9%Popular Science: 0.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.4%Popular Science: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.5%Andrew Paul: 4.4%Popular Science: 3.4%Hasty Generalization8.5%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.4%Popular Science: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.9%Andrew Paul: 2.7%Popular Science: 2.6%Appeal to Emotion4.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 15.2%Andrew Paul: 2.6%Popular Science: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.2%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.5%Popular Science: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.2%Popular Science: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.4%Popular Science: 1.7%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.9%Popular Science: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.2%Popular Science: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.6%Andrew Paul: 2.0%Popular Science: 1.4%Unattributed Quote10.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.9%Popular Science: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 7.8%Andrew Paul: 4.3%Popular Science: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice7.8%This article: 3.4%Andrew Paul: 1.1%Popular Science: 1.1%Indoctrination3.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 2.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.2%

387 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker18%attributed speech318writer words
Selected voice

NOAA

0%flagged-word coverage
69 attributed words100% of attributed speech71% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Unattributed Quote-12.9 ptsWriter: 12.9%NOAA: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.4 ptsWriter: 9.4%NOAA: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -6.3 ptsWriter: 6.3%NOAA: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.1 ptsWriter: 4.1%NOAA: 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.