You may not agree with the examples picked, but an interesting summary of how the mind confirms its biases:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/......s-mooney

Asking "why is the sky blue" is very different than asking "what is it that makes the sky look blue".
Science is not the best place to look for "how to feel about" stuff.
It's great for things where you want to know "how much" or "where" or "how far" or "how long till" or "how likely is" but offers nothing to appease our need for consolation/confirmation/explanation.

Mostly a language problem IMHO.

IMHO we have two eyes, and similarly two perspectives on the world of experience.
I imagine it like wearing 3d glasses.

Other senses too, with their own news.
What will make it to the Nightly News Broadcast?
And what channel are we watching?

Hmmm I'd go with the humors as a better model and add one for cool logical processing. Or put what we call rationality as an island floating on an ocean of sentiment.

Taking some control over our inner worlds, say by tricks or NLP or whatever - useful though also IMHO limited. Like trying to paint a realistic picture using only one color and then trying to pretend that's identical to the thing being pictured - even more limited. Not sure we can know, be and do all at the same time.