I think, perhaps, you misunderstood the OP's objection, particularly with respect to feedback loops. It may not be safe to assume the inputs are biased [1], bu

I think, perhaps, you misunderstood the OP's objection, particularly with respect to feedback loops. It may not be safe to assume the inputs are biased [1], but, then, it's also not safe merely to assume that they aren't. What's particularly dangerous is to assume unbiased inputs if the subsequent conclusions (the outputs) then influences future inputs [2]. That's the feedback loop that can serve to amplify biases in the data/conclusions with each cycle. > must that be anything-ist? Or just a fact? To answer your question, no, it doesn't have to be anything-ist and is, of course, a fact. However, to characterize it as just a fact ignores that it may well be an anything-ist fact, if it had been based on anything-ist data. Ultimately, this is just a GIGO [3] problem, a concept from early in "computing" (aka "data processing"). [1] which I'm substituting for "flawed", since "unbiased" was the OP's term [2] for example, by setting interest rates which have an influence on loan repayment likelihood [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out