This post has been percolating in my mind for awhile; recent events (my previous post) make me anxious to actually write it.

The short version: Being wrong about things is part of learning, and therefore part of scholarship. The one genuinely interested in scholarship and learning is willing and ready to admit wrongs and mis-steps. The one interested in securing position will likely not admit the validity of any opinion contrary to his own, no matter how obvious or well-argued, as this would potentially harm his investment in the position. No man is perfect, no position completely unassailable. Beware the one who admits no error or wrong in his work; this one may have motives apart from seeking knowledge and truth.

Now, the long version.

In his preface to his edition of the epistles of Ignatius, J.B. Lightfoot discusses the extant versions of these epistles. In the mid-1800's, Cureton published what is now known as the "short form" of the the Ignatian epistles, which is currently known only in the Syriac. There are three forms of the Ignatian epistles, the short ("Curetonian") form, the middle ("Vossian") form, and the long form. Almost no one holds to the long form being the genuine form, most hold to the middle form as the genuine form. Some do hold to the short form as the genuine form. When Cureton published the short form, however, there was apparently a rush to support the short form as the genuine form. Lightfoot writes (apologies for the lengthy quotation, but do note the bold text):

When I first began to study the subject [of the Ignatian epistles] Cureton's discovery dominated the field. With many others I was led captive for a time by the tyranny of this dominant force. ...

When however the short Syriac of Cureton appeared, it seemed to me at first to offer the true solution. ... For a time therefore I accepted the Curetonian letters as representing the genuine Ignatius, and this opinion was expressed in some of my published works. Subsequent investigation however convinced me of the untenableness of this position. At an early state an independent investigation of the relations between the Armenian and the Syriac assured me that there had existed at one time a complete Syriac version of the seven Vossian Epistles, fragments of which still remained, and of which the Curetonian recension was either the abridgement or the nucleus. ... Meanwhile, while revising my own exegetical notes, which had been written some years before, I found that to maintain the priority of the Curetonian letters I was obliged from time to time to ascribe to the supposed Ignatian forger feats of ingenuity, knowledge, intuition, skill and self-restraint, which transcended all bounds of probability. At this state I gave expression publicly to my growing conviction that after all the seven Vossian Epistles probably represented the genuine Ignatius. Afterwards I entered upon the investigation, which will be found in this volume (p. 282 sq.), into the language of the two recensions. This dispelled any shadow of doubt which might have remained; for it showed clearly that the additional parts of the Vossian Letters must have proceeded from the same hand as the parts which were common to the Curetonian and Vossian Recensions.

...

For reasons which will be found not only in the separate discussions devoted to the subject, but throughout these volumes, I am now convinced of the priority and genuineness of the seven Vossian Letters. (Lightfoot, preface, pp. v-vii)

In his preface, Lightfoot shares his journey from one position (short form is genuine) to the other (middle form is genuine). Reading this, I learned that really, really smart people can be wrong. What sets the good apart from the great is that the great ones are able to review and re-work the problem and admit they were wrong if it comes to that. Entrenched positions are not simply fortified through one's career; instead the solutions to problems themselves are worked, re-worked; evaluated, re-evaluated as one works the problems through one's career.

I learned from Lightfoot's preface that it is OK to change positions and admit error, even when those positions have been previously published.

Being wrong is OK. It's what you do when you realize you're wrong that sheds light on what sort of person one really is.