Scientific Evidence Against Reductionism (Aquinas 101)

The dream of complete reductionism is still just a dream.

Scientific Evidence Against Reductionism (Aquinas 101) - Fr. Thomas Davenport, O.P.

Subscribe to our channel here:

--

Aquinas 101 is a project of the Thomistic Institute that seeks to promote Catholic truth through short, engaging video lessons. You can browse earlier videos at your own pace or enroll in one of our Aquinas 101 email courses on St. Thomas Aquinas and his masterwork, the Summa Theologiae. In these courses, you'll learn from expert scientists, philosophers, and theologians—including Dominican friars from the Province of St. Joseph.

Enroll in Aquinas 101 to receive the latest videos, readings, and podcasts in your email inbox each Tuesday morning.

Help us film Aquinas 101!

Want to represent the Thomistic Institute on your campus? Check out our online store!

Stay connected on social media:

#Aquinas101 #ThomisticInstitute #ThomasAquinas #Catholic #ScienceAndFaith #ScienceAndReligion

This video was made possible through the support of grant #61944 from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.

[blackbacon]

This is a good one. I love to see the tailored scholastic response to modern, erroneous notions of reality.

[_iakvb]

The quantum chemistry example is a good one: we can't get a strictly solvable system for anything worse than helium. Taking a class in it rn, pray for me.

[angelicdoctor]

Meeting those who struggle with "scientism" on their own turf. Good play. Real evangelization.

[Irisceresjuno]

This guy clearly knows what's he's talking about with that PhD in physics and all. Good examples. Good points.

[fr.hughmackenzie]

4:38 true that the idea of temperature only properly applies only at the wholistic level, but can be part of describing lower level properties. So I think your implicit question is: why privilege the realism of lower level ideas over higher level ones?

[ipso-kkft]

Many thanks for this great video, Fr. (and Dr.) Davenport! I love the thought-provoking points raised here. PS. I'm a chemist who's worked in nanotechnology and materials science, so the "area" between chemistry and physics is a familiar and cherished one. (Also to fellow Catholics, don't be afraid of pursuing the natural sciences!)

[karenglenn]

God has given us so much mystery to contemplate and study.
The most wonderful to contemplate is the infinite Creater.
Thank you Dominicans for challenging our minds. The finite leading to the infinite.

[mauriciocomesana]

It is awesome to see friars that know that much! I am really grateful for your work Thomistic institute! I keep you in my prayers🙌

[shashikamanoj]

"Biology is applied chemistry. Chemistry is applied physics." Thus physics too is nothing but applied mathematics.
We can go further arguing that mathematics is nothing but applied syllogism of logical system. Ultimately everything is redused to absurdity.
'Man will know more and more about the less and less until he knows everything about nothing'
God bless you and your mission. May Mary Our Blessed Mother help you.
Benedicamus Domino!!!!

[andrewvillalobos]

This was greatly helpful. Thank you! I can't wait to see the rest of this Philosophy of science and nature series!

[bupsahn]

It overlooks the possibility that things like temperature, although useful aren't real in any way.

[markmenotti]

Thomas Aquinas had it right. Too many secular humanist that think "science" is the new god (little "g"). If one simply contemplates the complexity involved in the existence of matter and form, it is easy to understand that it all comes from God.

[johnkeck]

Thanks for this excellent overview, Dr. Davenport! I hope there will be further videos engaging in more detailed responses to reductionist claims.

[kravitzn]

We can use calculus to define a local temperature: the average kinetic energy in some small volume. Then we can look at or think of the temperature as something that varies over space, even on small scales. Granted, once you get to atomic scales, the notion of temperature breaks down. Regardless, we don't have to speak of "the temperature" of a cup of coffee. Just like we don't have to talk about the temperature on Earth (the death valley is hotter than Antarctica). But temperature is perfectly well defined both in a planet and on a cup scales as a function over space.

[markoh]

It is one thing to say that "one can only build some highly idealized examples" (05:30), which probably is due to the complex heterogeneity of nature; the superposition of various effects - too many to be taken into account by our computational or experimental models. But to me, that does not necessarily rule out Physical Reductionism in principle. Any thoughts?

[Hemuroever]

Science itself debunks reductionism. Science recognizes emergent phenomenon that aren't simply properties of constituent components.

[mw]

Thanks for the video! "Moreover, there is more and more evidence, and new and convincing arguments, that there are important features about the molecular, chemical, cellular, and biological worlds that cannot be reduced to particle physics, even in principle." This is really intriguing to me; can you point me to some sources where I can read about this in more detail? It's definitely impractical to reduce most complex systems down to the interactions between the fundamental particles that the systems comprise, but it seemed to me like you could do it in theory with sufficient computational power (but again, the computational power required would be completely impractical for most complex systems, and it makes much more sense to learn experimentally). So now I really want to learn about the evidence that says otherwise.

[RicardoGarcia-ibro]

Great video. There solution to chemistry is still intriguing: the inability to solve analytically the wave function for a many body system or the required functionals to describe bonding integrations.

There are many things we don't know.

[johnwiedeman]

Consciousness cannot be broken down. Consciousness is either conjured in life and in dreams. Consciousness does not exist in dreamless sleep. Consciousness is not of the world. John 17:16.

[Masonicon]

Good example of avoid reductionism when using scientific method was: when explaining anything Paranormal and Supernatural as Nanotech/AI, we gone with hyperdimensional nanotechnologies as explanations for the supernatural