Oh, even Socratic Dialogue has limitations and bias. Mind you, it _is_ extraordinarily useful and I’m not taking away from it’s value. But,
For example, it tends to limit itself to the subject matter in an isolated fashion, separate from the rest of everything else.
Socratic method can remove some basic cultural principles that may turn out to be very valuable in dialogue.
For example, humanistic values don’t always fit neatly into a Socratic dialogue. Friendship for example. Where does that fit?
If you’re in a dialogue, there may be an over-arching need for friendship at the end, or peace, or diplomacy.
That’s a cultural value or purposeful prerequisite to the dialogue.
A bias in the Socratic dialogue method is that these things are not important. A bias is that the dialogue can take place without taking into account a large amount of factors that are important.
In short, sometimes starting from scratch / sticking to the topic / excessive focus on the dialogue itself can become a hindering bias. The bias is that following the proper methodology is of utmost importance.
If there are shared beliefs that are critical in the dialogue, the Socratic bias will show through.
I know it sounds strange to hear it like this: but my point is, I don’t believe bias-free *is* possible. Of course that’s my bias. But I believe it’s possible to use whatever the best methods are available to achieve the necessary ends – all of them.
This may include the Socratic Dialogue as one method. Another may include humanistic considerations. Empathy. Desire for peace. Cultural preservation.
But anyway, that’s my take on it. I don’t believe one size fits all circumstances.