well, this is going into philosophy, but the standard way of thinking about bias is by examining logical coherence. For example, let’s say I am given the following premises:
P1: “all people are mortal”
P2 “josh is a person”
then the logically coherent (unbiased) inference is:
C: “josh is mortal”
So, if a housing expert is given the following premises:
P1 “All periods of rapid increase have been followed by a periods of decline”
P2 “We had a very long period of rapid increases”
and the expert says:
“there will be no decline”
I think I am entitled to call the expert biased, or incoherent. Just like I am entitled to dismiss flat-earth believers. Not because they can be very easily proven wrong (as you say, all data are subject to interpretation), but because their argument are typically logically incoherent.
