Emanon, We agree. Bias is good. If you think I don't think that, reread my posts.
We don't agree however that gravity is absolute. It is "probable" that gravity, as generally defined, is going to act upon the universe in a consistent and predictable way. It cannot be proven absolutely into the future. (By the way, I am not confusing deduction and induction, for what that is worth. Also, for the record, I believe that those who have the notion that gravity is absolute fall inside the bell curve. It seems reasonable to assume that gravity will always be what it appears to be, but there were people who thought that the earth was flat at one point too. The universe is expanding, or so it seems, and the other forces in the universe are far greater than gravity. It could be altered or impacted by those forces. It could be different than we think to begin with. As an example, and I am simplifying this a bit, at this point they believe that black holes are the result of a star's gravity being so great as to pull its gases into itself instead sending them outward. That seems to make sense. But they don't know for sure and maybe never will. Sorry to digress.)
I don't know if you are reading me right or not. I hope you are. Aside from my comments about science, we seem to be in agreement. Bias is here to stay and I am all for recognizing it and factoring it in where relevant. You know when they say, "Consider the source." That means factor in the bias of that source. I applaud your remarks, "Am I biased, damn right."
As for those who want universal proof before they will accept things, like I said, you can never know all the facts. So that is a tough bias to have and to then get anywhere, but it is as legit a bias as any I suppose. After all, if one buys into the value of rational discourse, then one buys into the logical conclusion that rational discourse has to be played out to the very end. Anyway, like I said, factor it in and move on with the discussion. I think we are on the same page.