I don't have to go as far as that for an example of how what we believe is more influential on perception than the actual evidence.
Two examples that I have experienced personally:-
I was riding my motorbike along the road to Buxton one day when across the apex of a corner, I saw a railway signal box.
I knew that there was no railway alongside that road, but I interpreted the situation by imagining that there is.
Rounding the corner, the signal box was on the road, right in front of me. I could feel the delay while my brain processed the idea that there was a signal box, on a low loader on the road. For about a second and a half, I could not accept that I needed to stop- the signal box could not be there, so it wasn't.
Self preservation overruled that interpretation, and I hit the brakes and stopped safely.
Second.
I had taken my boat for a last run along the Driffield Canal, before we moved it to Worcester.
At what was then the limit of navigation, I put the kettle on to make some tea, and set off back to my moorings. Some minutes later, travelling pretty much due South, the kettle started to whistle, and, instead of tying up, I just shut off the motor and let her drift while I went below. This was just after passing under a footbridge.
Coming back with my tea, I put her back in gear and carried on. The bow pennant, formerly blowing left to right was now blowing right to left.
"Wind must have changed" I thought.
Then I noticed that the compass was showing a course of Zero- due North.
"Gonna need a new Compass" I thought.
Then I passed under a bridge.
"They must have put up a new bridge further down" I thought. (there is only one)
Then I noticed that the Ridge of the Wolds was on the wrong side.
I could not convince myself that a whole range of hills had moved ten miles eastward.
While drifting, the boat had nudged the shallows by the bank and turned round 180 degrees.
I had been able to ignore three absolutely incontrovertible items of evidence of that, because I thought I knew that I was motoring South.
Any Aircraft Pilot will have similar stories- often with far direr consequences.
The human capacity to ignore irrefutable evidence is outstanding.
That's why it is useless to argue with anyone who knows that they are right.
There are plenty of examples on here.
Closer to topic, there is a high statistical chance that life exists elsewhere. There is a high, but smaller chance that there is intelligent life elsewhere.
The same stats, relying on the vast size of the universe, means that there is a very small chance of our encountering it.
If we assume that we are average, there is an equal chance that any aliens will be more or less advanced than we are in any particular area.
If we assume that God who created the universe, concentrates his attention on our little speck of dust- well, that would be a very odd assumption, and it would require evidence far more impressive than an old book created on this planet alone.
Which, if it were presented to us, of course, many people would ignore!
QED
Cheers
Dave