A random thought

Major premise: It is important to be trusted.

Minor premise: Being shown to be incorrect lowers one's perceived trustworthiness. (If I make a statement, and it is shown to be false - whether or not I knew the statement to be false when I made it - then I have a record in the eyes of observers of having made false statements, regardless of how many true statements I made before or have made since.)

Conclusion: It is sometimes perceived as superior to maintain one's position of correctness despite overwhelming evidence of incorrectness than to admit incorrectness. (Doing the former introduces doubt as to whether the challenger is correct, and therefore as to whether one's own perceived trustworthiness should be lowered; doing the latter runs a much higher risk of lowering one's perceived trustworthiness, because the speaker is admitting incorrectness.)

Thoughts? Is this a well-formed syllogism?

Is consistent initial correctness as important as the ability to change one's position when confronted with initial incorrectness?

Non sequitur

In a Baltimore accent, "wings" is pronounced "wangs".

The Hooters restaurant in Harborplace (on the Baltimore Inner Harbor) is advertising a special on a "bucket o' wangs".

I'm just sayin'.

News in brief

Scientists Find Baryons, Missing Since Big Bang
Astronomer Says "They Were In The Couch, I Swear I Looked There Like A Hundred Times"