Wayne, I don't have time this morning to answer all your points but let me start with:
"How is that if the basis for the determination is factual rather than personal opinion?"
To consider any and all determinations of science as unquestionably "factual" is an example of irrational faith rather than objective reason. Here's an example from my own life to give you some idea of what I mean;
As a young man I endured repeated exposure to a chemical called pentachlorophenol. This compound does not occur in nature and was created by chemists (scientists). At that time it had been scientifically determined that this pesticide/preservative could be safely used (with precautions) and released into the environment. From your point of view, as I take it, this was a "fact".
Later it was withdrawn from public use in Canada and many other jurisdictions and now;
http://www.iitc.org/wp-content/uploads/ ... in_web.pdfIt has been globally banned under the Stockholm convention because of the harm it does to people and to life in general. I'm glad it's now banned because it's horrible stuff but it took a lot of years for the scientific "facts" to change and that's unfortunate.
Of course this is just one tiny example out of probably thousands which reveal a patternthat we should recognize.
Here's another example before I have to go:
Some people say that CO2 emissions from burning of fossil fuels by humans is causing serious climate disruption. Scientific discoveries in the 1700's and developing to the present day have enabled humans to vastly increase their power to alter the environment by harnessing this ancient solar energy. There was great enthusiasm for "the wonders of science" as we devised steam driven pumps to take water out of coal mines, then steam locomotives, steam ships. Later,scientists found ways to refine petroleum so that gasoline and diesel could be used to power transport and excavating equipment. Dams could be built to generate electrical power or, failing that, we just burn coal.
So scientists are now alerting us to the dilemma that science got us into in the first place (similar to the pentachlorophenol example). We shouldn't have invented all those machines and burned all that fuel; oops! it was a mistake! But how do we get the Genie back into the bottle now?
Now, if I was condemning all science as evil that would indeed be bias, but that's not what I'm saying. However, to join the chorus of praise and faith that anything scientific must be unreservedly good is also an irrational bias. Sounds too much like religion to me! No, I'm just saying that the knowledge which science gives us should be applied with a lot more caution and evaluative wisdom than has hitherto been the case.
One relatively new and extremely important branch of science is ecology; a ray of hope!
I have to go and take care of some trees.