Oh, that's perfectly fine. A lot of those tools stuck around because they give an evolutionary advantage. For example, the credibility of whoever presents the information affects how people receive it. That serves to filter out misinformation without spending the time to required evaluate every idea out there. While it is true that pure computer-like objectivity is impossible, it is not necessarily even desirable. The issue we face is much larger than a collection of inherent cognitive biases. It is the socialization of children into ideological folds that give them cultural and ideological expectations in comprehensive packages without teaching them the tools of achieving legitimate knowledge. Every opinion thereafter must go through the heaps of unjustified nonsense before the brain can accept it, regardless of the amount of factual support. Just look at how many people reject biological evolution. This habit becomes very difficult to break as ones gets older and their world view becomes more established. It becomes a serious challenge to even get the average person to reach the point where the speaker would only influence the audience's objectivity. People will freely make significant decisions with far reaching implications on others solely based on gut feeling or arbitrary religious impulse.
The conflict of ideas and opinions will always persist, even if we become as rational as Vulcans. I would be contended living in a society where different opinions exist because of competing objectives or honest differences of interpretation of the facts. At least then, we would be able to efficiently settle differences through trial and error, or through the collection of better data.
