We live in an age of abundant, easily vettable information. By your presence here on HN I would assume in fact that you are a rather well-educated person, which

We live in an age of abundant, easily vettable information. By your presence here on HN I would assume in fact that you are a rather well-educated person, which is why I figured I'd respond to something on the internet. Sadly the abundance of information out there, not to mention the seeming biological inability for humans to think in a purely rational way ( https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Bias https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Bias ) means that it's very difficult not to encounter some noise in scholarship. If you cannot read past even open bias to engage with a reading critically and openly, you handicap your ability to gain new knowledge (even that which may disagree with a reading's thesis!) and to respond to the misconceptions and biases of those who do not read or think critically. This advances ignorance or apathy over knowledge and does a disservice to free-thinking citizens the world over, especially in a democracy if you're so fortunate to live in one. Now no one can force you to engage in a discussion or debate you'd rather not be a part of, and it's perfectly normal to not find interest in historical questions and essays. But to dismiss a scholarly reading on the basis of whether it has bias at all, rather than the more reasonable basis that said bias is not identified, not minimized or not properly segregated from the argument in question, is irrational.