Depends on if their thinking is authority based (dogmatic) or logic based. The logical people definitely change their minds when new evidence arises.
Einstein as a young fellow certainly did not change Planck's mind, and Heisenberg did not change Einstein's.
Doesn't matter if we talk about Magellan, Newton or Darwin. They changed the world one death at a time.
The reason is that logic is based on very few things(usually binary statements, true or false) and it can focus only on those things. They can dissect and understand deeply something very small and dead(static) but could have real problems understanding the whole system(big and alive[dynamic]).
You only can focus on 5,6 things at a single time and need to invest a ton of time to get results. The world is not pure binary, like mathematics usually study it,the world have shades of gray and billions of things interacting all the time.
In fact, without tools like cheap access to books that make it possible to complete the work someone else has done,and networks that share the knowledge like Universities, cities or the Internet, this process of analysis is so slow that it is completely useless.
For understanding complete systems intuition is just much better and faster. Because it is an stochastic process that could integrate millions of things at once.
For changing your mind you need proper training in the scientific process, and it takes a lot of work and effort to do, because it goes against our primal instincts. You need to be humble and train a beginner's mind all the time.
The fact is that most people believe they are logical while everybody else is dogmatic. But they are not.
They can not do something as basic exercise as proper debate in which they believe and defend only temporarly the opposite of what they really believe.
Really logical people can see their own flaws as a human(illusions and biases) and only then compensate for them.
I bet you,hilyen, believe your thinking is logic based. Hah!
>“People are embraced or condemned according to their beliefs, so one function of the mind may be to hold beliefs that bring the belief-holder the greatest number of allies, protectors, or disciples, rather than beliefs that are most likely to be true.”
>We don't always believe things because they are correct. Sometimes we believe things because they make us look good to the people we care about.
"This study was badly done", etc.
Then, anyway, will «definitely change their minds when new evidence arises».
"Educated bets" are part of the intellectual game.
I'm merely saying that people who consider themselves "logical people who will change their mind when the facts change" will still ascertain veracity of facts and how much weight to give them in a tribal manner, even if they are not consciously aware of it.
I believe that no one should go hungry, that everyone deserves health care, and that everyone should have a place to live. No 'fact' is going to change that belief, but for some people that belief translates directly into an ideology. For me, facts could change how closely aligned I am to more market-based or socialist views to solve these problems. I don't believe in market-oriented solutions because I like competition or want people to suffer(whereas for some the idea of winners and losers is attractive) I like market oriented solutions because I think given the whole system it's more effective.
And this is one of those weird ingrained personality things. Some people can't understand and think my _beliefs_ waffle. I similarly can't understand why those who have closely aligned beliefs and ideas can't see that an idea that seems to solve a problem on it's face doesn't actually solve that problem.
Nah. Logical people will happily simplify world ad absurdum and proceed ignoring all the facts that point to nuance.