You've yet to demonstrate it as fact. If "racial bias in appraisal" is a long-settled matter of fact, why can't you find anything to back it up? Was all evidence wiped from the internet? Claiming something is fact just because many people believe it is an ad populum fallacy. You are asserting it as "long-settle matters of fact". If you don't want to argue that, quit claiming it. All it seems to highlight is your proclivity for making bare assertions (another fallacy). People of African descent live in the US. Why does US slavery only adhere to white Americans, even though the first legally sanctioned slave owner was black, South Carolina alone had 171 black slaveholders, Native Americans held slaves, 3,775 free blacks owned 12,760 slaves, and Africans, just like the rest of the world, had been enslaving others for thousands of years? https://www.snopes.com/facts-about-slavery/ You have been arguing racism. Remember? But do you understand how that study failed to account for this? No, the null hypothesis is only one form of a causal hypothesis. Statistical inference begins by recognizing that research questions can be stated in terms of a choice between two very clear and mutually exclusive options. One option holds that the predicted difference between comparison groups does not exist out in the real world (the population). The only reason that the two group means are different from each other is chance. This first option is known as the null hypothesis. The other option is that the predicted difference does exist out in the real world. There is a reason (other than chance) why the two group means are different from each other. This second option is known as the alternative hypothesis. (PDF) http://www.radford.edu/~tpierce/610...gists/Independent samples t-test 10-02-09.pdf The default is that no causal relationship exists. Only chance correlations. This is the null hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis is that a causal relationship exists in the real world. The alternative hypothesis is the assertion, and the null hypothesis is the default assumption the assertion needs to refute to be valid. I'm making the null hypothesis (no causal relationship), you are making the alternative assertion (causal relationship), except also trying to shift the burden. Still avoiding whether poverty precludes morality and responsibility? So victims of racism can't be moral?