Learning the arguments of opposing viewpoints is helpful, but if you’re being truly rational, it shouldn’t be necessary to remove bias.
I figure that if you know there are other groups with different beliefs, they are likely to have heard arguments you haven’t. You should assume there are arguments, and use them to adjust your beliefs. If you later hear such arguments, and they make more sense then you thought, then that should make you believe them more. If they make less sense, even if they’re still good arguments and would only help convince you if you hadn’t already assumed their existence, you should believe them less.
On the other hand, if you’ve studied it significantly, you’ve probably heard pretty much all the best arguments on each side, and the problems are just due to being irrational. I guess you should try to fight that by trying to remain skeptical of the opinions of people near you, regardless of whether they’re more or less normal than what you believe.
Learning the arguments of opposing viewpoints is helpful, but if you’re being truly rational, it shouldn’t be necessary to remove bias.
I figure that if you know there are other groups with different beliefs, they are likely to have heard arguments you haven’t. You should assume there are arguments, and use them to adjust your beliefs. If you later hear such arguments, and they make more sense then you thought, then that should make you believe them more. If they make less sense, even if they’re still good arguments and would only help convince you if you hadn’t already assumed their existence, you should believe them less.
On the other hand, if you’ve studied it significantly, you’ve probably heard pretty much all the best arguments on each side, and the problems are just due to being irrational. I guess you should try to fight that by trying to remain skeptical of the opinions of people near you, regardless of whether they’re more or less normal than what you believe.