The Scientific Method: Its Benefits and Limitations w/ Prof. Karin Öberg (Aquinas 101)

⭐️ Donate $5 to help keep these videos FREE for everyone!
Pay it forward for the next viewer: go.thomisticinstitute.org/don...
The scientific method has been wonderful at advancing our understanding of the material world, but it is far from the only source of knowledge.
The Scientific Method: Its Benefits and Limitations (Aquinas 101) - Prof. Karin Öberg
For readings, podcasts, and more videos like this, go to www.Aquinas101.com. While you’re there, be sure to sign up for one of our free video courses on Aquinas. And don’t forget to like and share with your friends, because it matters what you think!
Subscribe to our channel here:
kzbin.info...
--
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.
Sign up here: aquinas101.thomisticinstitute...
Help us film Aquinas 101!
Donate here: go.thomisticinstitute.org/don...
Want to represent the Thomistic Institute on your campus? Check out our online store!
Explore here: go.thomisticinstitute.org/sto...
Stay connected on social media:
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinst
Visit us at: thomisticinstitute.org/
#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.

[@PInk77W1]

“Man is a stranger to himself The farthest star is closer to him than himself.” GK Chesterton

[@krzysztofciuba271]

do u want to write poetry in logical symbols? Even this logic uses a met-logic term like existential quantifier in its language that formally cannot do it but it..works (formally) but knows about the above? Here, one cannot simply to symbolize the term "being, or "to be:is, are" because it is not an object as the widest semantical category

[@ofthefaith9404]

Wonderful presentation of the subject. Thanks Prof. Karin for doing such a wonderful job. We need more credible people like you to also talk on the subject.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

We're glad you found it helpful! Thanks for watching.

[@dysfunctional_vet]

in stephen meyer's book, signature in the cell, he outlines a few if the staggering number of scientific methods that are used in science and how, depending on what is being studied, hypothesis are advanced. you are correct in that science hits brick walls that are dead ends for the advancement of knowledge. Paul wrote that the heavens declare the Glory of the LORD, and science has now hit the end (10-24 seconds into the start of the universe) and as Newton observed, gravity could not have ordered the planetary system we live in, but the LORD uses it to hold the system static. good video

[@mariadeven4112]

Great review and I love seeing a smart, highly educated person wearing her crucifix loud and proud. Praise God.

[@sayyamzahid505]

Aushwitz Brussels

[@Mommyandtux]

This channels really great for scientific minded people who want to balance scientific truths and intellectualism with something personally deeper and spiritual. Thanks for the good content.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

You're welcome! Thanks for watching.

[@reggiestickleback7794]

Loved the graphic at around 0:42. Growing up around microscopes and telescopes in some way developed my sense of faith, that is, the conviction of things unseen. Hierarchies of reality that go beyond our senses. And naturally God came on top of it all

[@reggiestickleback7794]

@Thomist in a Teapot Whether you’re referring to this video’s production budget, microscopes, telescopes-it doesn’t matter, you’re absolutely right! All very good uses of money, worth every cent

[@petermango9626]

Thank you, Doctor. I'm a fan :)

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks for watching, Peter!

[@dynamic9016]

Really appreciate this video.

[@xrace3000]

Thank you for helping to clarify the power and limitations of science. There’s a lot of confusion, both among the faithful and materialist atheists, about this subject. Ave Maria!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

We're glad you found it helpful!

[@dRasonWhy]

Loved to see inspirational, Catholic female rolemodels like Prof Karin here! Godspeed!

[@pavloswiss87]

Excellent!

[@kristindreko3194]

Thank you Aquinas 101, may God bless you!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

You're very welcome! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!

[@rileyboff]

I've never been so early to these wondrously produced videos

[@benhutchinson9808]

Another great video. Dr Oberg is great.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks, Ben!

[@michaelcollins9698]

Oberg seems a superstar Catholic intellectual. Hope to hear more and more and more from her.

[@colleenfrance]

Prof. Karin is amazing! 🙌🏻👊🏻💥🙏🏻 Love these videos...so grateful for the quality and topic!

[@juanperez2006]

This is a great explanation. Love that is short, succinct, and keeps to only one topic. Great start to the discussion of the scientific method and the underlying assumptions.

[@jackelineloyola8914]

thank you!! finally understood what this method is!!!

[@friendly_user1233]

Great video!

[@justinward3218]

Awesome!

[@williamjerome5836]

A wonderful, wonderful presentation, Doctor Oberg, I hope you have some more!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thank you! Stay tuned!

[@KeithDvorak]

this was wonderful! thank you for such a beautiful and lucid explanation ❤️

[@boku5192]

Well structured

[@MarcoCuauhtemocMejia]

Thanks for the video!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

You're welcome, Marco! We're glad you enjoyed it.

[@esdilcezpie4982]

beautiful video great job!

[@viciadoemhalo3]

Amazing video, so objective and informative.

[@Theoindigus]

Thanks!

[@hautran540]

This video is awesome, love it!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thank you!

[@peter_hobbs]

Great video. Thanks!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks for watching!

[@catholicdisciple3232]

Fantastic video! This channel is amazing :) God bless

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks very much! We hope you continue to find the videos helpful.

[@sdjohnston67]

Good stuff!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks, Scott!

[@gfujigo]

Excellent video. Absolutely love it. I think the limitations of science point to more ways of knowing. I can only imagine what God has hidden for us in the universe and reality. There may be yet vast realms for us to explore. Praise God in Jesus Christ.

[@braedondavies9592]

Hypothesis: "Murder is wrong." Hmm, not sure how to test this...

[@matthewgoddard5088]

Haha this brilliant

[@Guercio23]

This is a fantastic summary of many complex issues, thank you very much!!! I think the series should be rather called Aquinas 911 (for emergencies) XP

[@jhnxavier]

Methods that 𝘤𝘢𝘯 lead to knowledge, doesn't equate they 𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘭𝘺 do. The Scientific Method itself, is provisional...

[@renecordero1242]

Excellent presentation and what follows is my two cents. In the social sciences the scientific method suffers from many more limitations than in the physical sciences. For example, how do you measure human emotions; how do you measure human inclinations; is the sample you are using really random; and can you trust the subjects being studied when they provide answers to questions, subjects that may feel that an honest answer is not socially acceptable or politically correct. And finally, is the interpretation of the results acceptable to peers and journal editors.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks for the comment, Rene! We hope you enjoy the rest of the series!

[@ligidaykurin9106]

Genius

[@davidlenz9902]

Also, as David Hume showed us, inductive knowledge is fundamentally fallacious and irrational since induction is contingent on future phenomena, and assumes that the future will resemble the past. Similarly, induction is based on probability, unlike deduction which is based on certainty. In a philosophical sense, nothing empirical can ever be certain.

[@ponzianomanning3071]

The scientific method is a tool that can be likened to a carpenters skillsaw: very powerful and useful when used appropriately, but very destructive if it's misused. The scientific method shouldn't get involved in religion or spiritual matters else they will lead Christians astray; unless it is managed by people who have a strong footing in both, like Prof. Karin, Fr Spitzer....

[@stephenmerritt5750]

Also noteworthy I believe is that science and the scientific method have been used by human beings to advance their agenda. The advancement of humanity has been the sole motive. "How can the natural world be utilized for my benefit?" Scientific study that advances the human agenda has sole priority while other less beneficial aspects are marginalized for useful data only. In short, mankind wishes to advance his position to live longer (as long as possible) and the scientific method is utilized to collect the necessary data to achieve that end.

[@kevincarathon1462]

What would be other tools or methods to gain knowledge in your opinion?

[@mariog1490]

Some knowledge is not open to method. It requires transformation for example. That’s why you don’t teach Heidegger to a 5 year old. Many mathematicians and philosophers have also noted science isn’t really a method because it requires “how-to” knowledge as opposed to purely propositional knowledge. I mean, what scientific method did you use for knowledge on riding a bike. I have no memory or experience of acquiring English, but it seems like I have it. Science also tried to reduce knowledge to its parts. Like scientists will always tell me “that paper is an illusion, it’s just molecules”. But science assumes things like paper, English, microscopes, mathematics, etc. You can take two false things, put them together and get something true. That’s an absurdity.

[@KR-rj7vf]

Are there any claims in Scripture about the material world that people originally rejected but that the scientific method eventually supported?

[@MadMax31577]

I hope she has tenure

[@johnnotrealname8168]

Oh @~?£ wait you got this BEAST!!! Awesome!!!

[@michaelanderson4849]

"You cannot scientificically measure how mich your spouse loves you." Are you sure about that? I would say that love expressed in actions can be measured. Mere claims of love on the other hand, not so much.

[@ChonGeeSan]

Food for thought: If the Big Bang is true, how is it possible to have most planets spin in one direction and some spin in the other direction? Same goes with some galaxies I believe.

[@urlanbarros]

Let me try to raise up two questions (which caught my eyes): 1) she says that measurements is the core of scientific method. Well, this is related to modern science, which is "mathematizing" (although it finds new things). But the core of scientific method is Aristotelian physics with their integral parts, like Potentiality and actuality, the four causes, etc. 2) a true thomist never separates science from philosophy (in fact, they're the same thing), due to the purpose is to settle ignorance. But I know that some known thomists, like Jolivet, do that.

[@PInk77W1]

What are the four causes ? Thx

[@urlanbarros]

@@PInk77W1 material, formal, efficient (or agent) and final. I think they have a video explaining it, because It is Very important.

[@gonzalomorales1342]

​​​@@urlanbarros can you give an example of how the aristotelian physics is the core of the scientific method? Thanks.

[@Daniel_Abraham1099]

How does Thomism solve the problem of Hume"s Induction?

[@____-oc1bl]

Google "Feser: The problem of Hume’s problem of induction", first link.

[@julioalonzo1383]

Like most problems raised by Hume and modern philosophers, that problem is a false one. We can find two problems in Hume and the empiricist’s metaphysics and epistemology that lead to this so called problem. The first one would be the metaphysical one, namely its nominalism, the fact that it denies that things have forms or natures (that by which they are what we are. You and me have the nature humanity for instance). The second one would be its epistemological one, namely the fact that Hume collapses the intellect into imagination and the lower powers of the soul. For Aristotle and Aquinas we have sense experience of the world and through abstraction of these sense impressions our intellect comes to know the natures and forms of things. But if you deny that we have an intellect (as a distinct faculty) and that natures and forms exist, then you get Hume’s induction problem. The thing is that is one is to accept science and its findings, particularly those pertaining to the laws of physics, one is better of accepting the Aristotelian Thomistic view of the world in this case, rather than the Humean which leaves one with radical skepticism, even of science.

[@krzysztofciuba271]

St.Thoams and Thomism (of 13th cent.) does not know modern logic and Bible hermeneutics (though I am very surprised because even the Vulgata translation should make their brains work more efficiently; yet, it was not the case despite St.Thoams acknowledgement on the importance of first original human(s) author as in the case of the authorship of Pentateuch by "Moses" who was not a historical person for sure. Hume: any natural science is based on a belief (of formal induction)that the n-case will be the same as the future (n+1) case. Hume did not know yet the subtitles of for example in Method of Contemporary Thought by J.M.Bochenski OP, a logician.

[@ababich1]

If we know all things, we shall see the face of God

[@JohnR.T.B.]

Science also uses assumptions to make theories or equations work, like the assumption that the law of the universe was always exactly the same as it is today at the very moment of creation or 'big bang', that the law of the universe doesn't change gradually or abruptly at a certain time or in the future, that is "ordered" as stated in the video. Or in evolutionary biology today, although the mechanics of natural selection can be easily explained, we don't really know how life on earth as we know it started in the first place; there are hypotheses I believe but it is not clear how 'dead' organic molecules formed into functioning nucleic acids (RNA / DNA) that can effectively replicate themselves as offspring. That is why there is a hypothesis that the early life forms on earth were imported form outer space, but even then they had to start somehow somewhere, which doesn't solve the problem of how RNA / DNA-based life forms began. The assumption at this point is that life as we know it somehow began on earth sometime when the condition had become suitable enough for life to exist, and biological evolution started at that point. I also agree that science excludes totally the occurrences of miracles, because as faithful Catholics we have evidence of miracles, I believe tested by scientific methods, such as certain Eucharistic miracles or the miracle of the sun at Fatima, left unexplained by the natural law; usually discarded by skeptics as "made-up" or "superstitious", but have these skeptics tested and investigated the evidence of the miracles themselves or just simply brushed off claims of miracles? A little funny testimony, when I was still in elementary school, probably in the 3rd grade, I had a strange experience of witnessing a basketball disappeared totally under a car; I tried to pick up the ball in the street but I accidentally pushed it and it rolled quite slowly and steadily into the underside of a jeep car from the front, I looked down immediately as it went out of my view and the ball was gone, lol. In fact my dad was on the jeep at that time, he moved the car on my signal and I couldn't find the ball anywhere in the street or the sides of the street. I thought perhaps the basketball was sucked into the car from below but I know it is not possible, and I never find it, because the location in the street is right in front of my house.

[@RodMartinJr]

Good, up to a point. But *_disagree_* with the conclusions on limitations. With a true definition of "Love," we can measure the Love by using Christ's observation that we can tell a tree by the fruit it bears -- in other words, the person's *_behavior._* Of course, this would require the recording (measuring) the behavior of the person across time. But even more startling is the ability *_to use Scientific Method to PROVE God's existence,_* and *_to test hypotheses concerning Spiritual Action (miracles)._* Sadly, the 4th century church scholars tossed logic out the window when they created the "trinity" fiction. For with it, they forced upon the church flock the only unforgivable sin. They lusted after a *_fixed_* meaning which can *_never_* be achieved in the "ink," for the ink (letter) leads to death and only the spirit leads to everlasting life. References: *_The Holy Bible_* *_The Logical Christian: Handbook of spiritual reasoning in an unthinking, secular world_* *_The Science of Miracles: How Scientific Method Can Be Applied to Spiritual Phenomena_* *_Proof of God_* *_Four Elements of God_* *_Trinity Treason: How the church betrayed its flock with the only unforgivable sin_*

[@joannthomases9304]

How about this jesus god word..phenomenon, in a court ? Can you do something with this whole scenario ?

[@sethapex9670]

Can you guys make an odysee channel?

[@matthiasmuller7677]

In other words: the scientific method can not prove the scientific method

[@djg585]

The history of human beings exists, but science can not examine it.

[@matthewgoddard5088]

Won’t be long for atheist tell her she doesn’t no science could of done this for years an is nothing but a theologian I’ve heard this many times never gets old it’s unfortunate but it happens

[@awreckingball]

So we cannot know whether there is a flying spaghetti monster through scientific means and must accept it on faith.

[@emmashalliker6862]

*yawn*

[@kolbatov7337]

No. A flying spaghetti monster would be a contingent being, whose existence requires explanation. By contrast, and by definition, God is the one and only necessary (non-contingent) first cause. You can look up "cosmological argument" on Wikipedia.

[@awreckingball]

@@kolbatov7337 how do you know that your God wasn't created by another God?

[@lukelombardi1059]

@@awreckingball To say suppose (or at least entertain the possibility) that God is something created is to confuse the created with the uncreated. It is, if nothing else, a matter of definition. God is that which, being uncaused, non-contingent, necessary, eternal, unchangeable, timeless, spaceless, omnipotent, omniscient, and so on, could not conceivably be something caused by another. To ask what caused God is to confuse what “God” is. God is by definition something that could not be caused. You may well say that there is no such thing as God that exists, but to ask what caused God is to commit a category error, insofar as the definition of God does not permit the question to be reasonably raised. If your question then is why cannot the universe itself be uncaused, you are on a better track. That said, the universe as a whole, being something composed of parts (each of which are contingent and move from potential to actual) is contingent and moves from potential to actual. If there is not a causal explanation for the existence of the whole series of contingent things in the universe (insofar as each part is contingent) then we are left with a metaphysical absurdity (that everything is, at bottom, explained by “nothing”). Meaning: because the universe is contingent and moves from potential to actual, it cannot be uncaused. If the universe requires a cause, we must suppose that this cause is itself caused by something else or is an uncaused cause (an unmoved mover). If we accept the former, we still require another causal explanation (insofar as if our cause of the universe does not have the explanation and sufficient reason for its existence in itself, it must be caused by something which does have the explanation and sufficient reason for its existence in itself, a necessary being, something which is uncaused and has the the power to cause without itself being caused, which moves things from potential to actual without itself needing to be actualized). Thus, we know that God (the name to which we ascribe the necessary being that is the ultimate causal explanation and foundation of all that exists) is uncaused, that it does not make any sense to ask whether something which is, by definition, “an uncaused cause”, could have been caused by something else, and that the universe by no means satisfies this description. So we have good and rational foundations to suppose the existence of God, in a way that the flying spaghetti monster (an absurd and pathetic imagination which resembles God in no way whatsoever) has no such foundations

[@awreckingball]

@@lukelombardi1059 how do you know your God wasn't created by another God?

[@russelllankton1394]

You should not wear a cross with the image of Christ on it because He told us to take up OUR cross and follow Him... Paul says that we must crucify ourselves on a cross, and not to lust after the flesh, but to seek the Kingdom. Also, if you were to try and ACCURATELY depict what Christ looked like on the cross, you would be bearing a horribly injured, completely bloody, and naked Christ. He said, “Take up YOUR cross, and follow Me”.

[@Augustinianismus]

Bruh!

[@Joshharrison224]

We also preach Christ crucified.