One of the perks of basing conclusions on evidence rather than whims or emotions is that you tend be right more often. Yes, that sounds like an arrogant thing to say, but face it... the reason we're skeptics is because we love the truth and we're constantly searching to refine it. That tends to make us more informed on any topic than the general public who often seem to go with the flow and not question what they're told. I'm generalizing, but you get the point.

Be that as it may, it's easy to take pride in this fact. "Hey, I've done the research, and I'm right a lot of the time! Look at me!!!" Saying it like that may seem ridiculous, but it's not far from what I've been observing lately. I believe that such an attitude is not only counterproductive, it also ignores the best thing about being a skeptic, and that is... being able to freely say "Oops, I was wrong about that."

In our search for the truth, we have to make many provisional conclusions. If some of them aren't wrong, we're not doing the thinking required to be an active skeptic. We should be wrong more often, and most important, when we are, we should CROW IT FROM THE RAFTERS.

What separates skeptics from non-skeptics isn't that we're right more often, it's that we're wrong more often. Maybe not in actuality, but if we're to lead a science-based life, we have to be "proud" of the fact that most of what we know is possibly wrong. "Here's my best guess" is all we can ever say, because that's all we'll ever know. Now, our "best guesses" are in fact, THE best guesses. Unless we've missed something or succumbed to bias, they best explain the available evidence. But being proud of that makes it more difficult to embrace the pure simple joy of being unapologetically wrong. And really, we need more of that. Arrogance is never going to get people to think, but saying "Huh, I was wrong about that" can.

So here's my challenge to you: in the comments below, post a story of how you were wrong. And to be fair, I'll start. My problem is that I'm wrong so often, I'm not sure which example to give. ;)

Ok, here's one:

I've been flying since I was very little, and of course, curiosity lead me to wonder why planes fly. I did some cursory research, and found out about the Bernoulli effect. Planes fly because wings are curved on the top, which causes air to travel farther on the top of the wing than the bottom, and this causes lift. Here's a concise explanation from the Connecticut government.

For years, I'd tell people about this, including my own kids. It's a nice simple lesson, it makes sense, and it's also incorrect.

Well, maybe not completely, but we now know that the Bernoulli effect does not adequately explain why planes fly.

William Beaty wrote this excellent explanation of the problem in 1996. He discusses not only the complexity of flight, but goes on to show how the desire to be "right" without be willing to admit that you're wrong gets in the way of science. Winning an argument does not equal being correct.

So, I state PROUDLY that I was wrong about the Bernoulli effect. I'm glad to have increased my knowledge of the subject, and to be able to share that knowledge with others. And if you care to argue with me about the Bernoulli effect, be prepared for something: I'm not going to argue back. I have no stake in whether I'm correct or not. All I can state is that based on the evidence I've seen, my layman's position is that Beaty's explanation best fits the data.

And being a skeptic, I'm happy to say that I was wrong. I hope that you can be too.