This post is part of The Nomadic Professorโs 2026 Media Literacy Challenge: Read Smarter Online! Twice a month throughout 2026, Americaโs 250th anniversary year, we’re sharing one small skill to help you read better onlineโsocial media, YouTube, podcasts, newsletters, forums, magazines, journals, newspapers, and everything between. Follow along or join and enter the drawing to win free courses or Amazon gift cardsโincluding a grand prize of lifetime access to all Nomadic Professor courses, or a $500 Amazon gift card. Learn more here.
โEpistemically humbleโ is a fancy way of saying someone is not self-righteous, not dogmatic, not dismissive, not rigid, but instead knows they could be wrong, stays open to new evidence and better arguments, and holds their beliefs lightly, because they know thereโs a good chance theyโre going to be wrong a lot.ย
Not to be confused, however, with someone who changes their opinions based on trends, believes whatever they happened to hear last, or who makes way for every argument, however outlandish.
Maybe the sweet spot is confidence in your method for figuring out whatโs true, but a light grip on your actual conclusions. Like a scientist who is confident that the scientific method can lead to answers, but open to their own fallibility and limited experience.ย
So hereโs your challenge: identify and share the last time you were wrong about something. Could be anything other than a personal squabbleโpolitics, history, current events, medicine, literature, geography, sports, economics. Bonus points if your example is more than just a straightforward factual error, but an opinion you actually had to change based on evidence.
Enjoy!
Media Literacy Challenge 2026 โ Skill #12: Epistemic humility
Definitions
epistemology:
the study of how we know what we know
epistemic humility:
awareness that you could be wrong
intolerance of ambiguity or uncertainty:ย
the tendency to reject information or seek resolution when there is a lack of certainty; the inability to let a thing be ambiguous or uncertain, but instead try to force or even invent conclusions that make it more tidy
Downloadables:
Links:ย
- Sign up for the challenge
- Sign up for the ML course
- Find all challenge key terms on Quizlet (the number of flashcards will increase as the challenge progresses!)



4 Responses
A topic that I am definitely having to have some Epistemically humility with is the shrinking of the Great Salt Lake. Everything in the news is very doomsday on the topic, but as I have talked with people who are in the natural resource industry, their feelings arenโt quite concrete. It has led to more research and talking on my part. My opinion is still up in the air but definitely more in the middle than before.
When I was in 5th grade, my teacher taught us that blood is blue, and it turns red when exposed to oxygen, but recently I learned that it is red the whole way through, it just looks blue because of how light works.
In a college religion course the professor lectured on faith one day. He said we often think we know what something looks like, such as the front of a house. Front door, windows, porch, peaked roof etc. But houses are three dimensional, so someone else may have a better understanding of the side of the house or the back of the house, or maybe they are inside the house. Just because I had never seen the back of the house didnโt mean it wasnโt real. I think about that house often when I want to hold on to a narrow preconceived idea. My example is a little silly and not the most recent, but a friend and I agreed while talking about married coupleโs age gaps, 5 years was a big gap and 10 years was the absolute max. But a couple years later I dated and married someone 15 years older than I am. Eighteen wonderful years later, I cringe to think if I had held on to my original idea and chose not to get to know him better only because of a preconceived idea.
My Uncle was a teacher at a large city highschool with a diverse student body. He told me that if you were, when not in a person’s presence, able to recall a person’s race, color, ethnicity, or national origin then that meant you were prejudice and that prejudiced people were horrible people. He was important in my life so I just accepted and believed what he said, as if he was telling me that it’s important to eat your vegetables. I felt terrible for a very long time because I was able to recall these things about people I knew. I talked to other people, did some reading and studying, and a lot of thinking. Finally, much later, I told him that I disagreed with him. If one can notice and remember that someone wears glasses, or the color of their hair or eyes, is in a wheelchair, or wears a wedding ring, has pierced ears, or their sex, that is not a evidence of being prejudiced to be able to recall those details, and neither is being able to recall race, color, ethnicity, or national origin. I thought that the issue was whether you prejudged a person’s character, physical ability, intelligence, or other factor, based on those or other traits. My Uncle did not like my challenging him and told me I was just ignorant and I should not question my elders. This was, I think, the first time I challenged what I was told by an authority figure, and changed my belief, but it certainly wasn’t the last.