Your semantic nitpicking aside, I would argue that absolute certainty is not compatible with changing one's mind. Because if you're absolutely certain something is true, it's logically correct to dismiss any evidence to the contrary as fraudulent.
Accepting the possibility some evidence could change your mind, is sort of predicated on the idea you *could* be wrong in order to provide a cognitive basis for evaluating such evidence in the first place.
no one said anything about absolutism.
for my own perspective, i personally evolve my opinions constantly. do you? i also take great care in forming them initially so they are broad enough to evolve in the first place.
semantics in a world of weasel word "cognitive biases" and those who sling them, are critical so as not to be deliberately misinterpreted for profit or clout. hence why i do not use "right" and "wrong" or other tired phraseology.
so what are we evaluating? providing it's something other than my perspective. switch to a topic of discussion that interests you and let's apply your theory in practice instead of whatever this is.
