Hehe, thank you by your words, Gus!!
Perhaps that "seeking of truth" thing is out of place here, although I think that all times we have different theories on how something is, that should be our goal. I am a scientist, that may be also the reason I use that principle as a guide (although I also have some doubts on what is the truth and objective reality, but that problem is even more out of place).
In science, I think it is applied very well something said in the debated triple-X movie "Fritz the cat" (1972): "you study to became an intellectual only interested in outsmart other intellectuals". I think it is difficult to avoid becoming a kind of lawyer: no one wants to sound like a fool.
For example, sometimes we can tend to embrace different viewpoints on what was the real explanation of an aspect of reality. I said cuirasses and helmets in Napoleon's cavalry may be due to the fact they would get more likely engaged in man- to man combat (where the armor is useful), as I admitted the armor does not ressist bullets. Then you put on doubt this idea as in the civil war there were body- to body fights but not armor.
If this discussion follows as I think, I would try to get more evidence supporting my point of view (for example, that civil war soldiers were armed with guns, so were expected mostly to fight by shooting, even when man- to man encounters occurred -bayonet being one of the few devidces for that possibility-), and you perhaps would try to look for evidence that some regiments were expected to fight mostly hand- to hand and still lacked armor (for example, cavalry regiments were the main offensive weapon was a saber). And I do not know whou would be right, as i do not know if the possibilities above, in favor or agains my hypothesis, are certain by now...
But the problem I would have is that while looking for arguments to support my hypothesis, even if I am convinced of my position, I would tend to look mostly those favouring my hypothesis, and that may make me biased, what I try to avoid. Perhaps what one has to do is not try to defend an hypothesis, which may be correct, but take distance from defending the idea (emotional distance also) and look if there is not another hypothesis that can cope all the observations. But when one is in lawyer-mode, one defends his own point, one forgets to look for the hypothesis that better fits the data, and try to fit reality in one side of a dichotomy: what I propose is true or not.
