This is the course of action that goes back to the, in my opinion, ill-inspired motto, "strong opinions, loosely held." For some, this is an admirable position. To me, a scientist, it is a cautionary tale: don't trust strong opinions, always verify.
It's nonsense on the face of it, which I think is on purpose with the point to be deliberate about one's opinions. If the subject matters, do enough research and thinking to actually form an opinion, but of course remain open to new data and arguments. A good example of this in a scientist is Sean Carroll's belief in the Everett formulation of quantum mechanics, or Hawking on black hole information loss.
I always thought that the loosely held part of that motto meant that you should reevaluate a position you’ve held onto when new evidence is presented.
What about "strong opinion when there is strong evidence"?
Otherwise, you have absurdities like that of the author of the article, who told everyone and their cousins that, for example, 4 hours of sleep was enough and then realized he needed more sleep. He had a strong opinion without solid evidence. The "loosely held" part is meaningless, of course (in theory...) one has to change opinion when the evidence changes.