Final answer:
The term that Feeder uses to describe Von Daniken's interpretation of ancient artworks as evidence of ancient astronauts is the 'Inkblot hypothesis'. It reflects the tendency to project personal beliefs onto ambiguous stimuli, much like seeing shapes in inkblots.
Step-by-step explanation:
Von Daniken's interpretation of ancient artworks as evidence of ancient astronauts is an example of what Kida would call "seeking to confirm." Meanwhile, Feder refers to it as the Inkblot hypothesis. This hypothesis suggests that people can perceive and interpret ambiguous or vague stimuli in a way that confirms their existing beliefs or hypotheses, much like seeing shapes in inkblots that reflect one's personality or state of mind. In the context of Von Daniken's work, he sees what he expects or wishes to see in ancient artifacts—visitors from other planets—rather than using a skeptical or scientific approach to assess such evidence.The situation described echoes a broader theme within pseudoscience, where individuals may adhere to conspiracy theories or sensational claims despite the lack of empirical evidence. This is exemplified by the "Face on Mars" story, where a natural Martian formation was perceived by some as evidence of an ancient civilization. The phenomenon draws on the human propensity to recognize faces, known as pareidolia, and has been further sensationalized by media and individuals seeking profit or notoriety, rather than scientific proof.