I am thinking a lot about convenient truths these days. It’s probably a different way of framing confirmation bias, but in many settings I find it’s a better term to use. Especially in situations where incentives are strong.
One current example being the oil industry, and how they strongly advocate more oil extraction oil while still admitting that climate change is real (at least most of them). They always have very compelling arguments (read:convenient convictions) for such points of view.
Unfortunately, I find that most people focus more on the argument (and why it might be flawed), and (too) little on why it might be the case that a certain person/entity might have that specific point of view.
“Show me the incentive and I’ll show you the outcome”, Charlie Munger is known for saying. In many cases, the outcome is a preference for putting forward convenient truths.