Do you hate to admit when you are wrong? Do you try to defend your position even when it is indefensible? If so, do not feel too bad. You are in great company. Throughout history, some of the greatest thinkers and most intelligent people in the world have refused to admit when they were dead wrong. We are going to look at some of the most egregious examples of some very smart people who had some deeply mistaken ideas that they clung to despite overwhelming evidence that they were dead wrong.
Lord Kelvin: When Great Certainty Meets New Evidence
Lord Kelvin was one of the greatest physicists of the nineteenth century. His contributions to thermodynamics, electricity, and engineering transformed modern science. Yet even Kelvin demonstrated that genius is no guarantee against error.
Kelvin argued that the Earth was only about 20 to 40 million years old. Using the best physics available at the time, he calculated how long a molten Earth would take to cool to its present temperature. Geologists and Charles Darwin objected that such a young Earth left far too little time for the slow processes of evolution and geological change, but Kelvin remained convinced that his calculations were correct.
The missing piece of evidence was unknown to everyone at the time: radioactivity. After the discovery of radioactive decay in the late 1890s, scientists realized that radioactive elements inside the Earth continually generate heat, dramatically slowing the planet’s cooling. Modern dating methods now show the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old. Kelvin’s mathematics had been sound—but his assumptions were incomplete. His refusal to reconsider those assumptions delayed acceptance of the overwhelming evidence.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: When Belief Overrules Evidence
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of the supremely logical detective Sherlock Holmes, spent the final decades of his life passionately defending spiritualism. He became convinced that séances, mediums, ghosts, and communication with the dead were genuine phenomena.
Despite repeated investigations exposing many famous mediums as frauds, Doyle continued to defend them. Perhaps the most famous example was his unwavering belief in the Cottingley Fairies photographs, which appeared to show two young girls playing with fairies. Even after experts questioned the images and evidence accumulated that the photographs had been staged using paper cutouts, Doyle insisted they were authentic. Decades later, the women involved admitted they had fabricated the photographs.
Doyle’s story is a powerful reminder that intelligence alone does not protect us from self-deception. A person may apply rigorous logic in one area of life while allowing hope, emotion, or deeply held beliefs to override evidence in another. His willingness to believe extraordinary claims despite repeated contrary evidence stands as one of history’s most striking examples of confirmation bias.
Albert Einstein: The Genius Who Resisted Quantum Reality
Albert Einstein revolutionized physics through the theories of relativity and helped lay the foundation for quantum theory itself by explaining the photoelectric effect. Ironically, he spent much of the latter half of his career resisting one of the central conclusions of quantum mechanics.
Einstein believed that nature had to operate according to precise, deterministic laws. He rejected the idea that events at the atomic level were fundamentally probabilistic, famously remarking, “God does not play dice with the universe.” Throughout his life he searched for hidden variables that would restore certainty to physics.
Over the decades, experiment after experiment supported the predictions of quantum mechanics. The strongest evidence came long after Einstein’s death through tests of Bell’s inequalities, which consistently confirmed quantum entanglement and ruled out the kind of local hidden-variable theories Einstein had hoped would exist. Today quantum mechanics stands as one of the most thoroughly tested and successful scientific theories ever developed. Einstein’s skepticism helped sharpen the science, but in the end the evidence proved stronger than his intuition. Nevertheless, Einstein’s objections helped force physicists to sharpen the theory and design better experiments. In that sense, he was “wrong about the interpretation he favored,” but immensely valuable in advancing the science.
Now most of us probably know someone, perhaps not as famous as my three examples, but someone close or dear to our hearts that will never accept that they are wrong about anything. You can argue with them until you are “blue in the face” and they will never change their mind. These friends can be infuriating. But have you ever stopped to think why they refuse to change their minds in the face of sometimes overwhelming evidence? Psychologists have coined a term for such intransigence and call it “Belief Perseverance.”
This is the tendency to maintain a belief even after the evidence supporting it has been discredited or disproven.
Psychologists use this term when people continue believing something despite overwhelming contradictory evidence.
Example: A person continues to believe a conspiracy theory after every claim has been independently debunked.
Sometimes Belief Perseverance is confused with a close phenomenon called Confirmation Bias. They are closely related but not the same.
Confirmation Bias is the tendency to seek, notice, and remember only evidence that supports one’s existing beliefs while ignoring contradictory evidence.
Unlike Belief Perseverance, Confirmation Bias is about how people process information, not necessarily refusing to change after being proven wrong.
Before we leave the cognitive realm there is one more relevant term that we need to look at. It is called Cognitive Dissonance. This is one of my favorites since I have seen so many examples of this in my years on this earth that I have lost track.
Cognitive Dissonance is the psychological discomfort people experience when facts conflict with what they believe about themselves or the world. When people are faced with a set of facts that cause them discomfort they will use a variety of ways to rationalize the evidence that ignores the reality in favor of a reality that they are comfortable with. Like making excuses for someone’s behavior that is clearly immoral or unethical because they want to admire the person.
Now in today’s world of misinformation, disinformation, lies, distortions, fake ads, false messages, propaganda news, you can be pardoned if you cannot tell the difference between Perseverance Bias, Confirmation Bias and Cognitive Dissonance. Truth be told, even Einstein could probably not tell the difference. However, the bottom line here is clear.
People, your friends and mine, and even those who are not our friends will continually use distorted logic and distorted facts to cling to ideas and perceptions that are false.
And you may never be able to change their minds. Nothing you say. Nothing you do. No experts you call on. No preachers, teachers, ministers or nightly newscasters will ever make one dint in their belief systems. Their minds are made up. They are more than made up. They are cast in stone, or iron. You can take a sledgehammer, and you will not make a single dint in their ideas of what is true or not true.
So why are we all so stupid that we waste our precious time trying? Is it truly an impossible task to change anyone’s mind? If Lord Kelvin, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Albert Einstein would not change their minds, what makes you think that your Aunt or best friend will? Is the effort to convince them otherwise truly useless? Perhaps we need to look as some examples in history where people did change their minds. The most famous example may be Charles Darwin, the founder of “Evolution Theory by Natural Selection.”
Charles Darwin provides a striking contrast to those who refused to abandon deeply held beliefs. Throughout the more than twenty years he spent developing his theory of evolution by natural selection, Darwin deliberately searched for evidence that might prove him wrong.
Darwin believed that no theory should be protected from evidence. As he gathered new observations from geology, fossils, animal breeding, and the natural world, he continually refined and revised his thinking. His willingness to let facts, rather than pride, determine his conclusions exemplifies what we now call Intellectual Humility—the recognition that being wrong is not a personal failure, but refusing to change in the face of convincing evidence demonstrates a lack of Intellectual Humility .
Darwin’s legacy reminds us that progress, whether in science or in life, belongs not to those who are always right, but to those who are willing to admit when they are wrong. This brings us face to face with the concept of Intellectual Humility. This is a willingness to question any concept or belief we hold in the face of new evidence or facts or logic which might question the assumptions upon which we hold said beliefs. One might readily ask “How in the face of so much misinformation and lies can we tell facts and evidence from lies and fake facts?” This is not an easy question to answer.
Unfortunately, our schools and education systems seem to place more value on providing answers rather than asking questions. The whole idea of critical thinking comes down to the willingness to ask and consider questions rather than blindly accepting facts. Socrates was considered the smartest man in Greece because the Oracle said he was the only man who recognized how little he really knew. The Socratic method is one of deducing truth and understanding by asking questions.
Plato in his “Socratic Dialogues” described many of the stories wherein Socrates educated his students by asking questions and not by providing answers. Ironically, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle created perhaps the greatest detective of all time whose main modus operandi was asking questions and keeping an open mind. Something his creator did not seem to have the ability to do himself.
My father gave me a bit of advice which I still adhere to today when I was a child. He said, “Believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see.” Lawyers know this truth when it comes to witnesses. It has been said by the legal profession that “Nothing is as unreliable as an eyewitness.” These thoughts mark a boundary for my intellectual humility. It seems to be almost a curse that the smarter someone is, the more intransigent their humility can be.
Living here in Arizona, we come into the summer season when temperatures soar into the triple digits. We have heat warnings in the parks and posted in many public places. Nevertheless, frequently people ignore these warnings and run or hike down a trail only to come back in a body bag. Regardless of how many warnings they receive, some people insist that they know better. They regard the park rangers or DNR people who are trying to warn them as stupid unthinking clods who really don’t know how much experience they have or how tough they are.
Belief Perseverance not only affects science and politics, but it also sometimes kills people.
Go to YouTube and you can find countless examples of people who were so blinded by their own intellectual perceptions of their physical prowess and abilities that they thought they could ignore the advice of others. There have already been four deaths on park trails in the Grand Canyon this year. More will come.
Many people do not realize that Arizona loses far more people to heat than to lightning, floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, mountain lions, bears, rattlesnakes, and scorpions combined. Heat is, by a wide margin, the state’s deadliest natural hazard.
Last year (2025) in Arizona, a total of 680 people died from heat related deaths. Most were:
- Over age 50,
- Had underlying medical conditions,
- Were outdoors for extended periods or lacked reliable air conditioning,
- Were experiencing homelessness.
What does Intellectual Humility have to do with any of these facts? I think it all comes down to recognizing our own limitations. Sometimes this is made harder because we “used to be” good at something that we are no longer so good at. My best time running a 10k was 38”48 seconds. That is roughly six fifteen per mile. If I ran one today, my mile times would be about 14 minutes per mile. I could almost walk faster than I now run. Our perceptions of ourselves as we used to be can blind us to a reality that we need to face today.
Two sayings I like a lot are:
- “You got to know when to hold them and when to fold em.”
- “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change ,the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”
Growing old is never easy. Letting go of ideas is perhaps even harder. Intellectual Humility is a path to growing older longer and with less pain. Without Intellectual Humility, your images of what you once were and what you once did can blind you to the reality that you are today.
The courage to change your mind is not a sign of weakness—it is one of the highest forms of wisdom. Many good people would be alive today if they had developed more Intellectual Humility.
Theory (CRT) comes into this match sporting a record of 25 wins and 25 losses. Both opponents have lost matches to Trickle Down Theory and the Birther Theory. The winner of this match will face the reigning champion, The Theory of the Big Steal.
The testability of the theory’s major tenets
A theory may propose various tenets. That is the theory will assert specific things that belong with the theory. For instance Q’Anon Theory proposes that a group of Democratic politicians who are pedophiles meet regularly in the basement of a pizza parlor in D.C. to plot nefarious schemes for taking over the world. One of the major tenets of CRT is the notion that racism is ordinary and not aberrational. To measure the Q’Anon Theory all we would have to do is find a pizza parlor in D.C. where a number of pedophiliac Democratic politicians meet. This would be an easy tenet to test since the number of good pizza parlors in D.C. can be counted on one hand.
Eliminate all communists
I am not a very sentimental person nor am I one to cling to the past. I decided I would move on with my life. I threw myself into my job and time went by. I had almost forgotten about Leandra when I saw the ad. It was from the Resurrection Android Company. It was the same company that I had purchased my android valet Sam from. Actually, Sam was much more than just a valet. Sam was a third-generation android with some independent powers of decision making. He could decide what to cook each day and he also decided what I should wear for work. He did cleaning, mending and many light repairs around the house. I had bought Sam shortly after Leandra and I were married. Leandra had mentioned that it would be nice to have some help with housekeeping and all. That way she would have more time to spend with me.
Androids of course are not human and they have no empathy or ability to show any emotions. Sam was logical and could be persuasive but he could not show love or compassion. In the ten years since I had purchased Sam, android technology had advanced considerably. Looking at the ad from the company, it appeared that they were now on a 15th generation android that had affective as well as cognitive abilities. The ad claimed that the new android could help replace a loved one both emotionally and physically. By integrating DNA characteristics using a technique called “Assisted human reproduction”, they could capture the exact characteristics of a loved one. All they would need would be some trace or remnant of the deceased or former loved one’s DNA.
That was when the idea occurred to me. I called the customer service line and asked to speak to a representative. I asked her whether it would be possible for me to create a new wife in the exact image of my former wife Leandra. They assured me it was. It would take about six months for the bio-engineering to integrate the mechanical aspects of the droid with the alleles and DNA strands that they could map from a sample of Leandra’s DNA. When the process was completed, I would have an exact physical, mental and emotional copy of Leandra. Even better, she could continue to be programmed and become an even better Leandra. The old Leandra was somewhat boring in bed. The new Leandra could become a wild and wanton partner if that is what I desired.
It did not take long to assemble the new Leandra. I put the lower torso, upper torso and head together in less time than it takes to make a milk shake. She was perfect. She looked just like my old Leandra. When I turned her on, she greeted me and asked, “What will my name be.” I replied “You are Leandra. You are the perfect wife. You will love and obey me always.”
I came home one day from work and Leandra did not greet me at the door. I thought maybe her battery had discharged or that Sam had forgotten to recharge her. I had left strict instructions for Sam to recharge Leandra every day. But, where was Sam? I did not hear him fixing dinner in the kitchen. I went into the kitchen but Sam was not there. Suddenly, I noticed a note on the table. I picked it up. It was from Leandra. She had written: “Gone with Sam, don’t love you anymore. Bye.”
I am working to prepare for a chess match with my neighbor. I happen to note in the paper the Fact that tomorrow will be a quarter moon. Does this Fact have any relevance to my playing chess? I don’t think so. Thus, I don’t really care that there will be a quarter moon. As far as my limited cognition or perception, I can see no relevance between the Fact of a quarter moon and my preparing for my chess match. I could be wrong. We can always mis-perceive the relevance of some information to an issue. This is often done in science and in police work. We don’t see the connection between two issues and we misjudge the outcomes. This provides one good reason for diversity and numbers in problem solving. You have less chance of being blindsided if you have a variety of opinions rather than just your own.
Let us look at another example where the issue of relevance is more salient. I am planning to go on a trip to England in 2017. I want to plan my trip for the best possible time of the year. I hypothesize that two Facts or Data points are very important to my planning. The first is the temperatures at various times of the year in England. The second is the rain fall. I found the ranges for this data on a weather site and used the information to plan my trip. Of course, some of the decisions anyone makes will depend on their own weather preferences. I wanted to minimize rainfall and also keep the temperature in a moderate range. What I call sweater weather. Thus, both these set of factors were relevant and important to my planning. I would call them Evidence to support the time of year that I decided to go.
On the other hand, if you like rain, you might have picked a different time of the year than I did. There were other mitigating factors which played a role in my decision making. These factors included costs for lodging during the year and transportation costs during the year. In general, off season times have better rates but are somewhat the worse for weather. Another factor was the value of the pound to the dollar. I considered the value of the dollar to the pound post Brexit but concluded that I did not have enough information to effectively evaluate the impact of this data on my decision. I am assuming that with the volatility involved in the situation, the value of the dollar might go either way against the pound. My best guess is that I will benefit if I go as soon as possible. The news has recently noted that after Brexit the value of the pound fell 14 percent against the dollar. This would mean I could get a significant cost advantage if I purchase anything in England. I am hoping this situation will continue until after my trip but there are too many variables at play here for me to use this information. I can only hope.
A more common example of relevance can be found by looking at police work. We are all familiar these days with what is called Forensic science. I am sure most of you reading this have watched some police show. As soon as a crime is discovered, the Crime Scene Unit (CSI) is brought in to collect Evidence. Keep in mind that everything at a crime scene is not Evidence. Only what may have a possible relationship to the crime. This can be a real problem. The CSI unit is going to be limited by their assumptions concerning what might be relevant. For instance, I doubt any Crime Scene Investigator will care whether or not the light bulbs are “bright” or “soft white” in the kitchen or bathroom. It is impossible to collect all the “Evidence” of stuff that might be related to the crime. Thus, relying on experience and training, the police investigators do their best to collect Facts and Data that appear to be relevant to the crime. The relevant Data and Facts are not just interesting, they are Evidence. The more they relate to the crime, the stronger the Evidence will be.
An eyewitness can provide Evidence via his/her testimony as to the events of a crime. The relevance of any eyewitness is high but the reliability of an eyewitness can be much lower. Second hand testimony is not as relevant as first hand testimony and is thus weaker Evidence. Testimony that might be compromised by some factors such as police record, bias, discrimination, physical disabilities might be relevant but will be weaker Evidence because the validity of the Evidence is suspect. That is why lab procedures and chain of custody is so important to police work. They may have the most relevant Evidence imaginable but if the validity of the Evidence can be comprimised because of sloppy police work, the Evidence will be useless.
It is seldom that findings of Evidence in police work or business are subjected to as much scrutiny as occurred in the so called development of cold fusion. Perhaps, since this was a finding of great scientific importance, it was held to a more rigorous standard than would occur in many other scientific studies. I am thinking in particular of findings in the health field, nutrition field and drug field. In each of these fields we often have much less rigor before results are posted or accepted. Business is even worse with advertisers spouting outright lies and fabrications. Little known phenomenon are routinely heralded as being highly reliable Evidence of the benefit of some product or service that someone wants to sell you. All kinds of spurious Facts and Data are then marshaled as Evidence to support the phony claims by Madison Avenue advertisers.
Aging Capriciously 