Can you give examples of people rejecting what they see/touch/etc.? Or are they actually rejecting some other intangible information that's required to interpret those things in the "correct" way?
For convenience’s sake we can use the article itself -
>In step three, participants were shown one of the same problems, along with their answer and the answer of another participant, who’d come to a different conclusion. Once again, they were given the chance to change their responses. But a trick had been played: the answers presented to them as someone else’s were actually their own, and vice versa. About half the participants realized what was going on. Among the other half, suddenly people became a lot more critical. Nearly sixty per cent now rejected the responses that they’d earlier been satisfied with.
People rejected what they themselves reasoned was acceptable - the exact same thing, when it was presented back to them.
If you want other examples, which match specific conditions and criteria you are looking for, then I must admit that my laziness is sadly a bar to your edification.
For the purposes and context of this thread though, this example should suffice.
It clearly shows how our brains and cognition can reject information, which they themselves can see, touch and feel.
That's not rejecting what they saw. It's the opposite - trusting what they saw when re-presented with "their" answers combined with what the researchers told them about whose they were. They had apparently forgotten what they initially chose, or at least weren't very sure and trusted what the researchers told them instead.
That's like going to a shop once and remembering it was on street X, then returning later and finding that it's actually on street Y. Nobody would think "The sign looks like it says Y but it really says X and my eyes are deceiving me.". They might think the sign was changed or the shop moved or they remembered it wrong or some other explanation that doesn't involve rejecting what they can see.
