I am not what I would call a "good person" per se.

If I associate with any particular group, said group may not always act in a reasonable manner.

Other members in my "preferred group" are not necessarily "good" either.

I'm not always correct in my conclusions.

Along the way I may have either directly or indirectly hurt other people.

In other words, I'm human and far from anything perfect, but I still try to be as decent and logical and reasonable of an individual as much as possible, and turn to objective reality for most answers in life and not just sources that would seek to boost the world views that I would prefer.

"To put it briefly, theoretical advancements necessitate integration and parsimony (the integrative potential), as well as novel ideas and hypotheses (the generative potential). We believe that the proposed framework for understanding bias as presented in this article has merits in both of these aspects. We hope to instigate discussion as well as empirical scrutiny with the ultimate goal of identifying common principles across several disparate research strands that have heretofore sought to understand human biases."

The discomfort of cognitive dissonance is a universal primary motivator, which, in itself, is not a bad thing. The problem is that we usually resolve it only deeply enough to relieve the immediate discomfort by kicking the can down the road, so to speak. The eventual result of course being that we come to a major roadblock of all the cans that we have pushed into our future instead of picking them up as we come to them.

This is to say that consistency per se isn’t the problem, but consistency with what? Our current personal iteration of equilibrium, or objective reality at large?

Can I add " My past experience of science shows that it is useless."

That is very true yes.