I am a bit puzzled that learning to admit that you are wrong is sometimes treated as attaining some kind of superpower. I would say it is just part of growing up. (Having said that, some people seem to never grow up.)
Entertaining the even more nuanced idea that someone else has a strong argument that is wrong is, effectively, a superpower. Not many people who are willing to argue can do that. Especially if they are capable of doing that in a persuasive, public fashion.
What's the difference? Unintentional pretence vs intentional pretence? Strong imagining vs weak imagining?
Both make an assertion. Both assign a degree of confidence.
Eg, “let’s imagine that elves are real” is distinct from “elves are real”.
There is no magic point at which hypothesis suddenly becomes fact. It's simply a matter of confidence.
“Let X” is a context bound hypothetical — we’re assuming it is true within some argument; we have perfect confidence in the hypothetical, but only within that context.
That’s distinct from an assertion, which is a statement about how the world is with some associated confidence.
Not confidence, acceptance.
To be in a position to admit that you’re wrong you’ve already got to be trying to argue that you’re right.
And HN is filled with engineers.