A philosophical point I want to address is the act of changing ones opinion on a matter. We all have opinions. Sometimes they are subjective, other times they are based on information. This latter case changes the opinion to that of fact (or near fact) as we aren’t frequently certain about anything to a 100% degree of accuracy.
Now, why is it that when a person, friend, colleague, public spokesperson or politician changes their opinion on a matter are they derided for it? In fact, changing your stance in politics can kill an election or campaign. It is deemed weak to waver on an issue, especially an issue you once espoused and had strong support for. Instead people are encouraged to stick to their past views on matters as it is perceived (wrongly) as a symbol of being resolute and taking a strong stance. To die, metaphorically, standing for something you believe in is seen as courageous and respectable.
It isn’t any of those characteristics to stick to a doctrine or mind-set. Yet humans struggle to either adjust to someone having a new view on a subject, or think them wavering fools of unstable personality and convictions. In the face of new evidence it can never be a negative thing to adjust ones views, either to strengthen them, or to absolve them, unless the information is twisted in such a way so as to seem indicative of their opinion being correct after all. But, intelligent and rational minds take into account all possibilities and outcomes before making informed decisions on what their opinions are, and as such, opinions change in those who do not allow themselves to become stuck in their ways and are open to new revelations. Yet so few of these minds exist.
So why are people so stubborn and supportive of outdated opinions, methods, models and theories? What do you think?