Craig Childs on the Darkest of Dark Skies87%

11/25/2025, 10:08:02 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 69% saturation with 158 hits. Analysis detected 593 faulty-reasoning hits from 229 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 80.2% and a BS Rank of 87% (2,279 of 16,813 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 86.50% of the article peer group.

For many people, the night sky is an afterthought, especially if you live in a big city, where all the artificial light drowns out the stars. 
But the nature writer Craig Childs wants to help us rediscover the dark heavens and consider what they show us about who we are and where we fit in the universe. 
Childs says the night sky isn’t so much the absence of light as the presence of the universe, and that’s what he went in search of for his latest book, “The Wild Dark: Finding the Night Sky in the Age of Light.” 
On a bicycle-powered quest, he and a friend rode from the blinding glare of Las Vegas into one of the darkest spots on the map. 
So, it’s an adventure story. 
It’s also a kind of field guide to the wonders of the night. 
And it’s an effort to rekindle the awe that the starry sky can inspire, wherever you happen to be. 
Childs joins us to tell his story and share his reflections on the night in an age of light. 
GUEST  Craig Childs | Author, naturalist and wilderness explorer. 
His new book is “The Wild Dark: Finding the Night Sky in the Age of Light” [Torrey House Press | Amazon | Bookshop] 
Airdate: Wed. May 14, 2025 at 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. 
Rebroadcast: Thurs. Nov., 27, 2025. 
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
11.4%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Confirmation Bias
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Framing Effect
69%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Halo Effect
12.7%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Horn Effect
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Loss Aversion
0%
Negativity Bias
22.3%
Optimism Bias
27.5%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
11.4%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
18.3%
Anecdotal
10.9%
Appeal to Authority
12.7%
Appeal to Emotion
21.8%
Appeal to Nature
18.3%
Bandwagon
0%
Begging the Question
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Composition/Division
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Hasty Generalization
11.4%
Middle Ground
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
11.4%
Red Herring
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Straw Man
0%
Tu Quoque
0%

229 words analyzed.

Analysis

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