This seems to take different forms:

Reconciling - One of the beauties (in terms of enjoyment) of learning is trying to reconcile sugyas or shittos that appear to be contradictory.

Patch work - Likewise, we create a patch work of different works/seforim taking ideas from each and combine together, and the resultant composite , mixed or blended shittah that emerges essentially is a new shittah, with little resemblance to the individual components (just not contradicting anything that was stated explicitly)

Compiling - similarly (very common in halachah) if one sefer mentions a particular practice, and another sefer mentions a different way - a current sefer will list both as requirements, essentially compiling together anything found. It's not viewed as Rabbi "A" did "a" but intentionally not "b", and Rabbi "B" the opposite - i.e. they disagreed.

Cover all bases - if it was merely that we said - hey I'm not sure, so let's "compile" all of the different practices that we've seen/read into our daily practice - just to be safe. i.e. allow that they are not all needed (in regards to halachah) and may even disagree with each other (and are not all needed) - but we're not sure - so we play it safe. Or likewise go l'chumra and take the largest/smallest to be safe. Like so many things we do in situations of doubt. This would be intuitive, without the need for the "unless explicitly stated otherwise - assume and maintain a single opinion"

What would be wrong this is the case?

too much evidence to the contrary - This would seem to be in opposition to the Mishnayos, where (it seems that )virtually every Mishnah has a machlokes - where Rav A views the matter one way and Rav B a different way. The "2 Jews - 3 Shuls" joke If someone asks you a question on any matter, you can answer "It's a מחלוקת" without knowing anything about the topic, and probably be correct.

Can stray from the truth - If this assumption (all agree) is incorrect - creating blended or compiled shittos - is taking us away from the truth, more so coming up with במה דברים אמורים scenarios, to limit one or more of the shittos to only specific situations could again be changing their original intention - i.e. going further from the truth. Away from listening to what the author is actually saying and what their words seem to imply (without any preconceived notions) and see where those words bring you too (and only then compare to others to determine if different, and then revisit - how מוכרח strongly implied is this משמעות)

Where did I get this impression from? It's especially frustrating, when learning a hashkafa sefer with someone, and as you're learning Rav A's opinion, the chevrusa is inserting into Rav A's words what he (the chevrusa) learned from reading Rav B, C & D (and even if where the משמעות is to the contrary - it'll be forced in). So in the end, you never (or rarely) learn everything new as it's a rehash of what you already know (from Rav B, C & D) because they're not "listening" to what Rav A has to say.

I would attribute this to a flaw in the chevrusa, but I've had too MANY like this to be just a bad apple.

Perhaps it's a flaw in the current chinuch? However, you find this in the Gemara itself - where it may resolve an apparent contradiction by saying במה דברים אמורים - and limit the opinion of one to be speaking of only in an obscure scenario and very rare case - DESPITE not saying a word that seems to hint to that specific case, not to mention that it would seem to be a VERY important detail to leave out.
Similarly, you find the common approach to reconcile different (seemingly contradictory) opinions is to embrace one (which becomes the ikkur) and relegate the other to a specific situation (unlikely to occur) or of little importance. In essence selecting one over the other, without having to acknowledge that there was even a debate and in turn no "selecting" done by us. (I'm not knowledgeable to know whether this approach itself is only limited to certain types of situations (it would be great if it were limited to only different statements from the same source, but I am not knowledgeable enough to know if that is true, or something similar. Also we do find in other cases the Gemara state various opinions and leave it at that without reconciling. Likewise, Tos will bring different sugyas together - which again makes it VERY enjoyable as it opens up the sugya - think how dull it would be if the answer would also be "they argue" - this would greatly simplify the complexity that emerges from Tos.

Why not embrace it? - To be clear, I'm not asking regarding "normative" halachah - as I know there is a process in order to determine what is the way to practice.
אדרבה, What I'm asking is that the system allows for different opinions, and has a process to decide למעשה how to act. If it (having different opinions) is allowed. And we see - VERY prevalent, then why the desire to force seemingly disparate opinions into one homogeneous opinion. People ask - why is the Jewish view on ...? What's wrong with "there's different opinions on the matter"? Again, outside of halachah, where the different opinions, must "collapse" into a single psak (from the בית דין הגדול בלשכת הגזית). Why not embrace the world of possibility, and that they Torah includes in it the possibility for all of these opinions (and was even intentionally worded as such to allow for all of the various views) אלו ואלו דברי אלוקים חיים - I recall even hearing of a Zohar that even at har Sinai - each person had a different understanding of what was revealed. (I think I also saw this in Rav Dessler,מכתב מאליהו - if anyone knows the place - please let me know)

Thus when asked what is the Jewish view on it - why can't the response be - "actually, why don't you tell me what it is. Go and connect to the source, and tell me what you see. All that I can do is tell you what I see, and what others have seen (which at best will give you a consensus (but again not asking for normative halachah)))" So we'll have what (acc to that Zohar) we had at ha Sinai - each of us has different revelation from the Torah, and we converge in practice with a single halachah as decided by the Beis Din haGadol Is this crazy? Am I way off? It seems so intuitive to me, and self evident. However, as I pointed out contradicted by the crazy (reconciling) limiting cases of the Gemara

Browse other questions tagged .