But I have been wrong before....

I am sure most people here would agree that as life goes on, our opinions, perceptions and beliefs about different things in life can drastically change and many times mutually exclusive to our older thoughts and beliefs.

This has started to make me really wonder,

If our perceptions and opinions keep changing by experiencing more of life and getting more knowledge than what "value" does our opinions have "at any given point in time"? The only conclusion seems to be "not much at all".:?

What does it mean then? Should we never be too defensive about anything? Should we not hold strongly any opinions?

I mean it's a bit scary to think that some of my strong beliefs of today could be something I consider a "joke" 10 years from now.:?

It really depends on how strongly you hold your opinions and why I guess. You can always change your mind but if you believe in something and are well justified to do so then I think you have every right to assign value to it.

I totally see where you're coming from and it is a little bit perturbing to think that my convictions today could be my jokes tomorrow. I think that's why you generally ought to place an emphasis on how you come to some opinion rather than what your opinion is. If you have a sound methodology of forming opinions and beliefs then change is fine, in fact it would be welcomed because you must have learned something new that you wouldn't have previously known.

There are many reasons why our opinions change. (1) New evidence comes that forces us to rethink our beliefs. Our conclusion could be wrong in the first place or it could've been right and we've misinterpreted the new evidence. (2) We rethink our logic and find out that it is more logical to believe one thing than another. Sometimes, we grasp to the logic that makes sense, but we do not fully consider all sides of the issue and as a result, our opinion is one-sided and we do not always arrive at the truth. (3) We stop thinking about an issue, such as free will, and we start thinking about other issues, such as crime and punishment and we realize that there is a potential contradiction with these views and that we have to find a manner in which they're not compromised or we have to scrap one or both of them. (4) Sometimes, emotions get in a way. A perfect example of this is a man whose girlfriend is diagnosed with breast cancer and as a result, stops believing in God. Another example of this in reverse would be a couple becoming more religious as a result of a birth of a baby. (5) Societal views may changed and may shape the person's views as well. The person may be "fitting in" and logic takes a back seat for this adaption.

I'm an epistemological absolutist. I'm not a fan of epistemological skepticism and therefore I think an opnion can be justified with enough research and logic without contradiction or having to appeal to emotion or societal standards.

I'm an epistemological absolutist. I'm not a fan of epistemological skepticism and therefore I think an opnion can be justified with enough research and logic without contradiction or having to appeal to emotion or societal standards.

Genetic_Code

Same here. 

But its a step to step process.

What you are saying is that we shouldnt take the next step since the next step wont leave us somewhere stabilised but we are bound to make another one, and move again and again.

I find that to be very "natural" and I wouldnt have it any other way.

Thats what we do; we see/hear/absorb information and create impressions/beliefs based on them. Later we are bound to get more information and then reform our beliefs/impressions and move on. But it is important each time to create those impressions and beliefs even if they might not survive "as is" in time; to create a "base" from where you will "leap" to the next one and so on. Its a process and an inevitable one imo.

There are many reasons why our opinions change. (1) New evidence comes that forces us to rethink our beliefs. Our conclusion could be wrong in the first place or it could've been right and we've misinterpreted the new evidence. (2) We rethink our logic and find out that it is more logical to believe one thing than another. Sometimes, we grasp to the logic that makes sense, but we do not fully consider all sides of the issue and as a result, our opinion is one-sided and we do not always arrive at the truth. (3) We stop thinking about an issue, such as free will, and we start thinking about other issues, such as crime and punishment and we realize that there is a potential contradiction with these views and that we have to find a manner in which they're not compromised or we have to scrap one or both of them. (4) Sometimes, emotions get in a way. A perfect example of this is a man whose girlfriend is diagnosed with breast cancer and as a result, stops believing in God. Another example of this in reverse would be a couple becoming more religious as a result of a birth of a baby. (5) Societal views may changed and may shape the person's views as well. The person may be "fitting in" and logic takes a back seat for this adaption.

I'm an epistemological absolutist. I'm not a fan of epistemological skepticism and therefore I think an opnion can be justified with enough research and logic without contradiction or having to appeal to emotion or societal standards.

Genetic_Code

Isn't that epistemological absolutism some sort of objectivism (i.e. there is universal truth out there, but we may not know it yet)?

Personally, I think relativism is the way to go and absolutism leads to dead ends.

The whole point raised in this thread is one I strongly identify with and one that only increases in me with age.