Can a core truth be succesfull argued against to make someone believe it to be false? IF so why?

I've been reading this very long article that is written in several parts that presents ideas about how we came to where we are in history in relation to ideas and how we think. One that i recommend everyone to read, as its very interesting as a thinking tool. And it presents a way to look at arguing and using scientific thinking to work out theory's to base our view of reality on. And one concept is that you formulate an idea or a hypothesis and toss it out in a virtual boxing ring where others (i.e internet) can compete with it and see if it holds. But how accurate is this as a good method i wonder.

So I wonder with this in mind. What if a, not widely known and understood, but still truth, was to be placed into this boxing ring, the marketplace of ideas. Would it hold or could it potentially be argued against with good rhetoric, yet based in lies, to be "proven incorrect" ? And if this is an actual potential, why is that even possible, to prove a truth to be false?

This is both a question of the overall capability of the general public, to think clearly - and a question of how to accurately present actual truths, where it actually holds even if someone with all they're tools tries to prove it wrong. (whatever reason they may have to do so)

The article I'm reading is a multi part series called: The story of Us And I'm at chapter 7 as i write this.

To an individual, this is possible, because if an individual defines an idea to be part of himself and have a certain investment into that idea, then he will argue forever that his version is true even if its false. But with a large number of individuals with many different ways of thinking, i wonder.

If a truth is presented with all the pieces in place to, say a group of scientific thinkers, then its likely to will be taken as truth over time. But what if it was to be presented to a group of closed minded or very conservative thinkers, if you will? Cold it be presented in a way that they had to accept it as truth over time, or would it then be falsely proven to be false as a result of a will to preserve the believed self ?