Franktalk wrote:The advancement of new ideas do not come from people who believe that everything taught to them represents the whole truth and there can be no further knowledge obtainable.
No one claimed otherwise and this isn't the problem in your case!
This barrier to new ideas is a major stumbling block to many who have accepted the idea that the current understanding of man is somehow perfect and further investigation is not required or desired but new ideas are to be mocked and ignored if they don't fit into a certain mold.
How big of a problem could this be given that I know of NO ONE that the current understanding of man is perfect? No one!
In my case the ideas come from a different perspective of the observations of the world.
In your case, and unlike Einstein's case, the problem is related to logic and clarity of thought.
If a man learns of new knowledge like the idea of a spiritual layer of reality that man can use the tools of this physical world to mock and discount the existence of this new view of our reality.
Awkward sentence as best. The man mocks himself?
This is very common and it serves as a test to the man and his flesh.
It tests his flesh?
If a man believes that he is flesh and the whole of reality is the physical world then that person has walled themself in with their world view. [grammar!]
Think about this: If a man believes that the whole of reality is the physical world plus the spiritual world then he has walled himself in that world. He can never come to a realization of what is beyond the mere physical and beyond the mere spiritual!!
He can never come to know of the supra-hylomorphic world that underlies both the physical and the spiritual. See in the church of supra-hylo we are beyond you mere spiritualists and physicalists.
In the case of Einstein he did not accept that the physical world was fixed but fluid and subject to change.
The idea that the physical world is in flux and not fixed is obvious and not a contribution of Einstein. Cavemen knew it.
I embrace this idea and have used it to form many of my views of reality. I have for years tried to tell people that atomic decay rates were different in the past.
And the evidence is against you. There is no motivation to suppose that decay rates were different in the past except to salvage some creationist notions.
I thought it made the most sense and it allowed erosion rates to then match up with decay rates of radioactive elements.
You absolutely unequivocally do not know what you are talking about.
Real scientists have always crosscorrelated evidence from different branches of physical science. The fact that they line up when analysed with sufficient care is what gives us our justified confidence. You are reading crappy fringe pseudo-science.
I was of course mocked for my view of the past and told that the constants of physics are not changeable. Science is only now finding out that what many thought to be constant is indeed not fixed.
Scientists use evidence, analysis and logic to obtain such results (assuming they pass the test of time).
But you just knew it by magical intuition---right?
This is has yet to be checked and has not withstood the test of time. But you like it so you accept it wholesale. LOL
So how does one take in this new information from researchers? Do we go back and examine all of our currently held views or do we sit and wait for the experts to tell us what to think?
You of all people should sit and wait since you haven't any expertise or even scientific sensibility.