The best books are those who allow a person to come to their own conclusions using the information presented....then there are books that present factual information on a person's life or a historical event, again, presenting information that the reader can determine for themselves any type of conclusions...

There are experts in their fields of economics, chemistry, nutrition, religion...any subject, really...that are more credible than arm chair quarterbacks...why bother reading these kinds of books when the author is not credentialed?

So that leaves books that are written by media pundits or political commentators that are biased and with ever changing events in the world, they are mostly commentary at the time they are written...I will read excerpts of all sorts of books, but I can generally tell after a few pages that they serve to justify values I already believe in or go against those same values...both a waste of time when time to read is precious enough...

I try to read, listen too other points of view but it only takes a few paragraphs for me to just stop and move on because of what I consider absurdity.

I grew up in a liberal Democrat household, and once I learned about the other side I embraced their views. Now, I consider myself an independent/libertarian. I agree, one should learn about differing point of views.

I tend to agree with what everyone is saying, but today we no longer have disagreement about views/opinions, but about FACTS themselves. It seems at a certain point, we are playing into the hands of those who want us to think there are no facts or reality, so one view is just as good as any other.

I mention the resurgence of the flat earth movement recently. And maybe that's not a good example because even I looked up some of their arguments 5 or 10 years ago, lol, but I was curious.

I don't know what I'm saying exactly, other than there are some extremely crazy views out there that I don't think I need to read up on to discover they are crazy on their face.

PZ Myers coined the term "courtier's reply" or "courtier's fallacy" to indicate the fallacy of telling an opposing view that they "just haven't read enough" about it, which is supposed to trump any argument one might have while claiming you are too ignorant to know your argument is wrong...while never pointing out what it is you do not know or how it undermines your view.

"None of the gospels are written by eye witnesses, none say who they were written by, none of them have original copies to inspect, none of the oldest copies date to the time Jesus is said to live, and none of them have extra biblical corroboration by anyone at the time about anything of significance."

"Yes they do, you just haven't read enough about it."

Those who disagree with me are wrong. Why should I read things that are untrue?

To me it's not reading about my world view, it's reading things that agree with facts. I don't care whose point of view it is when they start spouting evident untruths that don't agree with what, not what I believe, but what I've already researched then it's time to close the book. I'm not going to read a book that preaches the point of view of the author whether I agree with him or not. I'm not going to continue to read a book that goes against established science or well documented history. If things are still up in the air as to a conclusion I'll delve on otherwise I've got more important things to do.

I do and always have. It is how I was taught. It is a simple matter of gathering knowledge. That people tend to read and/or gravitate toward their views is normal confirmation bias. If one is exposed to something beyond/outside his/her sphere of understanding or comfort zone, one has been made vulnerable. Few humans like being vulnerable. It is something that has been inculcated in us over deep evolutionary time and is an intrinsic part of our fight or flight response. It requires conscious effort to overcome this and it is much more surprising and gratifying to me that there appear to be so many who have been making the effort.

It depends sometimes if the other side has an argument. Occasionally we assume there must be a legitimate opposing view to any view someone has, even if we are not sure what it is. And occasionally that simply isn't true.

The best argument I have ever heard for the existence of a god was when I read Aristotle's prime mover argument in college, and had no idea that argument was in there (nor had I ever heard of it before). It was so clever and interesting, I thought; it seemed air tight; and then I immediately did more research to see what the responses to it were...and discovered it wasn't so air tight after all.

Is everyone aware the "flat earth" movement has made a bit of a comeback the last few years? Is it ok to ignore those who write books and argue this view, or must we take it seriously by virtue of the fact that it is opposing our views?

Agree...that is why it’s important for universities not to “non-platform” speakers who hold controversial ...even repugnant views. We should be exposed to opposing points of view and encouraged to listen and then debate if we believe them to be contrary to our own. We should also be open to the idea that we may be wrong and they may be right.

I read an article that describes that this is a normal tendency in human beings, to read what will make us feel more comfortable. But if you really want to excel or master a certain subject you definitely have to read opposite points of view and more...

I say to me daughter, it's fine to read stuff about what you like/think/believe but it's always useful to read the opposite as it gives you a different perspective but also allows you to have a more balanced view, as well as making you question your own reasoning. It's not what to think it's how to think

You can usually tell who those people are when you post something and they go ballistic because the pea between their ears cannot handle the overload.