If you've debated or argued with someone, you've probably been in that situation where the other person's argument is "you haven't read enough," "you should read more," or "you need to read a little." Or maybe it's you who's had an argument like that. No problem, I've done it too.
We usually tend to believe in the fallacy of believing that having read or researched more about a subject automatically gives us knowledge of the underlying truth of that subject.
We think that if we read more we will know more and then we will know the truth about something or everything. However, this does not seem to be intrinsically true. I cannot state this as an absolute, but I have the impression that, in fact, the more people read about a subject, the more they disagree with each other. Why does this happen?
Well, while it is true that when we read we reason and think, it is also true that all the information we receive goes through a filter. Each one of us, through different mechanisms, selects what to believe and what not to believe; we decide what is true and what is not true. Sometimes we do it based on our experience, sometimes based on our ability to deduce and reason, and sometimes based on our emotions and sensations.
On the other hand, when we read we learn more, yes, but what do we learn? Is all the information available entirely correct? I can literally write a book explaining through hundreds of pages and tens of thousands of words how and why apples are blue. Are they? You probably know the answer, but if you had never seen an apple, what would you think about its color or taste? A person who has never seen an apple, but has read that book might spend a lifetime thinking that apples are blue, in fact, he might finally find an apple and not know it, then pick it up in his hand, and after eating it ask: What is this? Someone would say, "An apple," and then this person would have a conflict inside, "Who should I believe, the writer of the book or this person?"
So we must start from the idea that information not only has to pass through our personal filters and biases, but that there is also the possibility that the information is partially or completely wrong.
From this deduction we can arrive at this statement: everything that is in a book does not have to be correct or true, however, everything true or correct that is in a book can be known without the need to read that book. Otherwise, how could the person who wrote it know it?
I once read that people who talk a lot are wrong a lot, and perhaps by simple mathematics and probabilities, that may be true.
Proverbs 10:19: When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent.
And if it is true that people who talk a lot are wrong a lot, then it is equally true that those who listen will hear a lot of wrong things. And it's not much different with books. Reading more can sometimes mean reading more nonsense and lies. But the problem does not lie in the fact of reading or reading more, but in the inability to discern between what is true and what is false. To read more is to know more, but it is not to know more true things. Therefore, he who reads arrogantly, thinking that reading alone will confer genuinely true knowledge, may go through life thinking that apples are blue, and try to convince the uneducated peasant that what he is growing is not an apple but something else.
Hello @hivewriter. This is @gentleshaid from the @ocd team. Welcome to the hive blockchain and congratulations on making your first post. As a form of optional tradition, new users make an introductory post to introduce themselves to the community, what they do, where they are from, how they made it down here, and any other information about themselves they are willing to share. A typical introductory post can be found here.
We will be following your account closely for some time in anticipation of your introductory post. Once again, welcome to the hive blockchain.