Why do they persist in believing that which is empirically unsupported?

From The Misogyny Myth by John Tierney.  The subheading is Women aren’t discriminated against in twenty-first-century America—but men increasingly are.

I have been noodling on an obvious paradox for some time.  In our modern, classical liberal society, by law and custom, we are steadfastly aligned with egalitarianism - equality before the law and equality of opportunity.  And we are substantially successful at delivering on that aspiration.  Especially when compared to the past and to other countries.

Which is not to say that there aren't inordinate incidences of bias and discrimination among and between individuals.  We are, of course, a free society in which people are entirely free, at a personal level to be biased in numberless ways.  But when it comes to systemic and institutional bias, those tend to be few and far between.  

When you go hunting for the numbers, the snipe just isn't there.  Partly, probably because such forms of bias have been illegal for more than half a century and because we have a competitive legal system.  If there is money to be made by suing for unfounded discrimination, our lawyers will make those cases.  

The paradox is that some large portion of the population, or, at least, among the chattering class, are convinced that such bias and discrimination both exist and are overwhelming.

We are, fortunately, as classical liberals, probe to empirical rationalism.  If you want to make an argument, at some point the numerical evidence needs to be there.  

But our clerisy are fine with believing things which are clearly untrue based on the empirical evidence.  Common clerisy beliefs unsupported by empirical evidence but none-the-less held with conviction.  

There is systemic bias and discrimination against women in terms of income and professional attainment.

There is systemic and significant violence against black suspects by police officers.

That police shootings of black suspects is a significant number.

That women routinely earn significantly less for the same work performed by men.

That public schools under-educate and over-punish black students in a prejudicial fashion.

That human evolution ended 10,000 years ago.

That there are learning styles which affect learning outcomes.

IQ is not predictive of life outcomes.

Implicit Association Test results are predictive of bias and discrimination.

That CO2 emissions are a direct and singular control of present and future global temperatures.

The science is settled.  About anything.  Ever.  

This is an off the top of the head list which probably would be three times longer and five times better with an hours worth of thought.

Tierney's is a good wrap-up of the evidence both against misogyny and for misandry.  It is significant, solid, and either unknown or reviled among the clerisy.  

And that is perhaps the ultimate paradox.  The clerisy tend to be among the most educationally credentialed as well being generally prosperous and therefore in a position to avail themselves of known and readily available information.

Why do they persist in believing that which is empirically unsupported?