> Should it always assume bad data or potentially bad data? If so, that seems like it would defeat the point of having data at all as you could never draw any conclusions from it.

Yes. You, and every other reasoning system, should always challenge the data and assume it’s biased at a minimum.

This is better described as “critical thinking” in its formal form.

You could also call it skepticism.

That impossibility of drawing conclusions assumes there’s a correct answer and is called the “problem of induction.” I promise you a machine is better at avoiding it than a human.

Many people freeze up or fail with too much data - put someone with no experience in front of 500 ppl to give a speech if you want to watch this live.