DaasYochid –
I think you might agree with me, essentially, that logic trumps all. It’s just that there are many areas where logic does not demand one to go either way, and in those areas we have knowledge based on a host of other factors. But those factors are all secondary to logic; that is, if logic should definitively disprove something I had previously apprehended some other way, I would discard that thing.
My point is that even if our IHNYRP is perfectly willing to admit to things known through ways other than logic, he will still want to be able to ascertain that these things aren’t contradicted by logic, which is a better way of apprehending knowledge than any other. He would therefore quite reasonably want to be unrestricted from reading opposing views which – in his mind – might quite possibly offer logical arguments for their dissenting views. I am saying that it is quite difficult to rationally justify such a restriction to this person.