My argument is that correlation doesn't imply causation. Just because all current examples are biased does not mean that the only way to do things is to be bias

My argument is that correlation doesn't imply causation. Just because all current examples are biased does not mean that the only way to do things is to be biased, right? To put it another way, the concept of disruptive change is when some company does something different than all the other companies have done up to that point. I imagine uber, airbnb et al being told by someone that the 'empirical evidence is 100% against them' as well.