Babbling notes. this is what 4 year old rough drafts look like.

It's not practical to decide only to make decisions and opinions based on truth, as truth is something easily pursued but rarely arrived at.

I've done my fair share of arguing and debating with folk a far cry more intelligent than myself. I gather it is this gap of intelligence that removes me too far from the problem to see the real solution. The problem; objective reasoning vs. personal bias.  Time and time again I see the intelligent folk take personal bias, as a concept itself, and string it up on a crucifix to bleed out and die. Anything short of total objectivity is tainted and muddled and amateur.

There comes a point when a person has to say "I have a working philosophy with which to make decisions and actions based off of... it is not perfect or universally true, and I will reevaluate it when there is development in either myself or the , but for all intents and purposes I must accept it as a working truth."
the problem with removing bias completely is that it leaves one with an inability to arrive at a conclusion regarding the vast majority of human experience and knowledge (as there isn't much that we know for a concrete fact as being completely TRUE). If we are doubting every conclusion based on our inability to just say "i personally feel this is probably right" then that doubting will continue regarding what information is analyzed... unfortunately, we are only the number one authority on us as individuals, so eventually that doubting tree leads back to that which we know best... ourselves.
and when we make a habit out of doubting ourselves, our own worth, flaws, and limits come into question. Our ability make a pragmatic decision decreases, the application of our rhetoric ceases, our courage itself wanes to a sea of doubt and a mantra trying to convince ourselves that the intellectual ground covered in the exercise was worth every bit as much as any real world application of philosophy.

jumping to conclusions is bad... weighing bias when looking at possible conclusions, the reason and origin of the bias, and coming to a point where a conclusion is made without knowing absolute objectivism is not bad in my opinion.

illogical request. not applicable. every advancement regardless of origin has drawbacks.

name an advance that didn't require bias?

I preloaded the chamber, and the showdown seems done, so I'll just fire one off into the sunset:

regarding any matter of design or innovation that required math... was it euclidean or differential geometry that was applied? algebraic? are any of these incorrect? yet all arrive at different conclusions given the same data? is it not a bias of what is most convenient for the application, what is preferred?