That would fall under physics, which are the objective laws of universe. And that fits neatly within this conversation as well; "bias" has no meaning (or rather, a very different meaning) in the context of math and physics.
Or maybe I'm not aware of the biased physics theorems out there!
>Or maybe I'm not aware of the biased physics theorems out there!
Well I did just mention the flat earth, so there's one. TimeCube for another that's simultaneously hilarious and depressing (the proponent claimed he was silenced by a worldwide conspiracy). Conservapedia, the conservative wikipedia alternative, argues in full sincerity that Relativity theory is liberal and maintains a page titled "Counterexamples to Relativity" [0]. And there's actually a growing phenomenon of Physics Grifters, as noted in some fascinating posts on HN [1]. If you said they were wrong "because physics", they would say you were biased, and you would say you weren't, and you'd be off to the races with all the traditional hallmarks of polarization.
And if you were really unlucky, someone from the outside the debate who wasn't interested in facts would say there's no underyling truth, and it's just polarization, and the best approach is to be neutral between the two sides. And if ever an LLM were to start talking about it, they would need to avoid taking a side to avoid the appearance of "bias."
I think the fallacy here is thinking that opinions somehow don't encompass claims about the real world capable of being right or wrong, when counterexamples abound, and the search for a patch-job corrective principle (oh, that's just physics) unfortunately can't patch that leak.
