Why do scientific thinkers represent themselves as open minded when they are not?

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law,

It is a strange thing. The way they have been presented science is as if it is a consensus on various topics. It is also coupled with a constant argument with people who do stupid things with science [YECs] and a subsequent refusal to understand anyone discussing something they have accepted [From the first part] or only grasped the very basics of , is actually using real scientific concepts.

To put it simply, they aren't that scientific. They just think they are, because they've watched documentaries, as well as picked up a few arguments used to chastise the dangerously scientifically illiterate- but a level above their own is often times mistaken for making things up. I would think this comes from them feeling they have a strong grasp on the topics: See Dunning-Kruger Effect.

I occasionally have this problem in Evo Bio where if I mention other units of selection I am accused of Creationism or some such thing, despite it being a commonly adopted bit of the science that there are multiple units of selection. Or even certain elements of natural selection and the very "Unsavory," way any trait can be selected for in a population [This is usually done by simplifying the selection pressures. My common exploration is the role of rape in human selection; and rape being largely unsocial can often result in my being called a Creationist trying to disprove Evo Bio. Though, I think part of it may be their attempt at moralizing nature]

Edit: He is getting at some of the issues relativity has in various places. Of course it works in certain instances- that was never in doubt from anyone. But yet people put those words in his mouth and then agreed to kick them around and act as if he said them. It is obviously flawed, anyone saying it is not has no business even discussing it, as they are WOEFULLY under-educated on modern physics.

"why do theist believers LIE so Often about atheists and Non believers?"

Because often times whatever is disliked is deemed a lie as to not need to research it.

Love is the law, love under Will.

"Why do scientific thinkers represent themselves as open minded when they are not?"

Open minded is not "open head, insert brain". Science is about making an hypothesis, putting some numbers to it (a theory), then seeing what Nature thinks. Then if you get a favorable result, someone else tries it a little different to see if you fudged your result. Science is antagonistic. So we do not fool ourselves.

"Nobody would even consider the notion that the theory could be flawed."

It is a theory, so of course it is flawed. It is not based on Holy Writ. But we have tested it for more than 100 years, and it works:

http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Rela...

... so Nature seems to like it.

"They have blind faith in the theory and will not even consider questioning its validity."

No, you misunderstand. We challenge it daily. It (the scientific method) has helped us keep more meat alive on this planet than it ever has before.

"On the premise that I definately have no understanding of it since I believe in God, I will add that it contains implications about the operation of gravity, which science still cannot explain."

And never can. Will you never learn the difference between Science and Religion?

"Are scientific thinkers as open minded as they act to be, or do they live on blind faith in a theory that has been proven to not work?"

If the theory is proven not to work, we do not use it where it fails. So far, Relativity does an excellent job in the scales dust to Universe.

The thing is, with science if you want an idea considered you have to back it with evidence and research. Calling out flaws in an accepted theory without backing it with serious evidence and research is not going to get you very far. A Youtube video would not be considered evidence. In fact, the theory of relativity is so complex that you would need to have a pretty good understanding before you could be qualified to understand arguments against it. You may not be able to detect a flawed argument.

As for the theory of relativity it produces results. It has that going for it. All of our modern GPS has to use the theory to compensate for time differences due to the movement of satellites being different than the movement of objects on the planet. Not sure why you would think it is a flawed theory.

"I just posted a question regarding the Theory of Relativity and got some relatively sub-standard responses. Nobody would even consider the notion that the theory could be flawed."

Your post was nonsense.

And the theory of relativity has been confirmed by observation and experiment, in all sorts of conditions, on the earth and in space, literally tens of thousands of times. Given all that evidence, no "blind faith" is involved.

And dishonestly quote-mining Kaku only further demonstrates your dishonesty and ignorance.

Please stop being dishonest -- it's not an appealing trait. Ignorance can be fixed with some education -- the dishonesty part you're going to have to work on yourself.

IOW, you're really unhappy that no one took your unsupported claim over a well supported and tested scientific theory.

Too bad for you. Being 'open minded' doesn't mean 'I believe anything that any idiot on the net says'. Deal with it.

Oh, and knobs who whine about science on a religious section really don't want any kind of actual answer about science.

"Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn't understand [and now we do understand.] If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem."

~Neil deGrasse Tyson

-If the Universe needs a creator, why doesn't god?

If god doesn't need a creator, why does the Universe ?-

‘“Rational arguments don’t usually work on religious people. Otherwise there would be no religious people.” - Gregory House, M.D. Season 4 Episode 2 The Right Stuff.

When the Theory of Relativity reaches a singularity it can no longer describe whats going on, we've known that for decades. Its hardly a reason to throw the rest of the theory out, it works perfectly well when describing what goes on outside a black hole.

It also breaks down when describing the very small, that's when quantum physics takes over.

Its good at what it does, but has limits, again this is nothing new.

Only those lacking in education or indoctrinated by an extremist sect or ciult would be so afraid of science or reality!

So do you believe God was not clever enough to use the big bang and evolution as his tools?!

The Pope, Catholic Church, Church of England and mainstream churches all accept the big bang and evolution!

Lord Carey the former Archbishop of Canterbury put it rather well – “Creationism is the fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth”!

Nice that Christians and atheists can agree and laugh together even if it is at fundie expense!

But behind the laughter is the despair at the fundamentalists striving so hard to destroy Christianity by turning it from a religion to an ideology!

Surveys suggest that 29% of American Christians are so extremist in their beliefs that they fall well outside of the accepted bounds of Christianity!

Being open minded doesn't mean that you simply start agreeing with every new idea, nor does it mean that you forgo all knowledge and support ideas that have no legitimacy based on our understanding of the world around us. Most 'scientific thinkers' are open minded, but they also want some type of evidence (evidence that's well researched and peer reviewed is probably the best).

The so-called scientific thinkers in here are mostly just rebels against God's truth. I can't hear you tube stuff and don't get involved in all kinds of scientific arguments. But you are right that they present themselves as open minded when they are not. They are very closed minded.

""Are scientific thinkers as open minded as they act to be, or do they live on blind faith in a theory that has been proven to not work?""

why do theist believers LIE so Often about atheists and Non believers?