It's an interesting take / observation on why various people adopt some information from a hard source and later updates or suggestions towards what might be a more accurate explanation are more or less dismissed.

I however reading the article found only what I would consider an abstract: the basis of what sort of new data was later dismissed, hard figures, and an actual study are not included and the article reads more as a thought exercise with appropriate explanations. Still for a certain set of people, I feel it is a very good take like those who've built their role or identity around being right / point of authority in that field, and in an ongoing process of adopting new information quickly by fitting it in around what they already know.

The article however does not delve into mechanisms like denial, and completely misses an important area, more so given the rise of a global anti science cult which has gained great political power over the last decade, any measured level of scepticism on the part of a person who might disregard a correction due to a form of political interference from high above.