If you took perfectly rational people and ran the same test, you'd get the same result. Evidence that supports a position that you already have evidence for is

If you took perfectly rational people and ran the same test, you'd get the same result. Evidence that supports a position that you already have evidence for is more likely to be true. If someone showed me very compelling evidence that the world was flat, even if I was unable to find any issue with it, I still would believe that it is false. If a single counterpoint could change your belief, you never had any business claiming it as a belief in the first place. Do you have cause to believe that repeated exposure to every side of every story won't lead the average person towards truth?