{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02304147465437788, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006144393241167435, 'mean_word_length': 4.873873873873874, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Visual ethics: a past case and a present one

Visual representations are powerful aids to communication, making points with clarity and force but they can offer opportunities for ethical and rhetorical lapses. Two cases are examined: Ernst Haeckel's illustrations of supposed embryonic states in support of his biogenetic law in the late-1800s and Jan Schon's graphs of ground-breaking research findings in solid state physics very recently. Both sets of illustration have been shown to be fraudulent. In visual ethics the key questions remain the same: how did the visual come about, what do they mean, and do they show what they claim to represent?.