By definition, an intelligent and honestly mistaken person will change their opinion/beliefs when presented with clear evidence that they were mistaken.
You know this isn't necessarily so. In another thread, you advocated summary justice. When another poster responded with a compelling historical counter-example, you didn't blink (by which I mean acknowledge at all, much less consider/discuss any possible flaw in your position). Does that mean you are stupid/dishonest/crazy? Or does it indicate, as we well know, that people may resist—or not comprehend—facts that don't fit their construct of reality, without necessarily being any of those three things?
Last edited: