Biased Thoughts, and Scientific Temper

It is what people call ‘scientific temper’. Though I agree this is a term I can very loosely base this question upon. By definition on the internet, “Scientific temper describes an attitude which involves the application of logic and the avoidance of bias and preconceived notions. Discussion, argument and analysis are vital parts of scientific temper. It is thus necessarily open — admitting every point of view, however heterodox it might be, or where it comes from. Elements of fairness, equality and democracy are built into it.”
One must be able to understand that along with him/herself being right, there are chances that he/she MAY be wrong. Also, one must understand that along with the other person being wrong, there are CHANCES that he/she may be right. In the end, what happens is a different story. One may be right, and the other person may be wrong. But why do we, being intelligent beings, not wish to welcome a new idea? Why do we wish to keep sticking to the views already existing? Is there not a possibility that one new idea from somewhere may be strong enough to over throw a current belief, and lead to a betterment of sorts?
The difference between what we think is right and what is wrong may also be due to cultural conditioning. We may perceive an idea as a wrong one. But we not only think it is wrong, we think everyone should agree that it is wrong. This is not to say that something is wrong just because everyone agrees it is wrong. There is a logical possibility that we are all mistaken and it is just our cultural conditioning that tells us that something is wrong. By a different and perfectly meaningful logic, what we think as ‘wrong’ may be harmlessly ‘right’. I just ask one question. Why do a portion of us not even bother to wonder about the other side of things, and just jump onto our own thought, and stick to it? Why would one want to look at the ‘heads’ side of the coin, and immediately deduce that the other side is ‘tails’? Perhaps the coin you are holding may be biased, and both sides may have a ‘heads’. There is no need to accept anything, but at the least, perhaps one should ask questions, and put an idea through enough analysis first?