This I fully agree with! I often find it’s fruitful not only to read the works of those whose upfront effort is to achieve (supposed) ‘neutrality’… but also to read the works of those who write from entirely within one upfront-acknowledged perspective. At least insofar as human matters are concerned. There often seems (to me) greater depth from reading multiple accounts of a topic, from multiple different ‘biased’ standpoints, than reading only one account that attempts to adopt no biased standpoint at all (especially since I think there’s no such thing as a truly neutral work, unless it consists of a collection of equally biased works on opposite sides, to give all voices their own hearing). E.g. on this Crusades issue, I’d be super curious to read an entirely Catholic-apologetic version, and an entirely Muslim accusatory version, and a secular academic effort at ‘neutrality’, just to see what the depths of the biases look like compared to the outcome of what attempted neutrality looks like.
I do think ‘Do Justly’ has a reasonable point about giving an obviously-biased book to my family/friends, so I appreciate their suggestion of a resource that attempts to be neutral. At the same time for my own private reading and understanding, I’d be curious to understand the most-biased perspectives on both sides, as well as whatever the ‘neutral facts’ are considered to be in contemporary academia.
