There are a lot of traits and concepts that Western culture values that I'm unsure about, but this is the one on my mind today.
What's the deal with admiring someone's conviction? Wouldn't it be ethically better, in most cases, to admit that there are reasonable arguments against one's position?
Relatedly, shouldn't we value "flip floppers" and "wafflers" for admitting that the way they feel at any one point is subject to change as new facts, arguments and points of view are considered? How did we come to act as if it were wrong to change one's mind?
It strikes me that there's a social danger in endorsing conviction. I might be wrong, though.