We argue that there is an incompatibility between the two basic principles of Molinism, i.e., God’s middle knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, and divine immutability. To this end, firstly, we set out the difference between strong and weak immutability: according to the latter only God’s essential attributes remain unchanged, while the former affirms that God cannot change in any way. Our next step is to argue that Molinism ascribes strong immutability to God. However, according to Molinism, some counterfactuals of (...) freedom need to be actualized by divine will. We argue that this claim does entail a change in God because it attributes a knowledge to God that involves moving from possibility to actuality through divine will. Therefore, claiming God knows counterfactuals of freedom leads us to reject the strong sense of divine immutability. Further, we argue that assuming God’s knowledge encompasses counterfactuals of freedom cannot be consistent even with weak immutability because, according to Molinism, a change in God’s knowledge requires a change in His essence. We conclude that Molinism is incoherent. (shrink)

The ontological analysis of concrete particulars deals with the relationship between concrete object and their attributes. Both Peter Simons' Nuclear Theory and Aristotelian Substance Theory may present an acceptable explanation for the following three problems: Identity of Indiscernible, Excessive Necessitism and Change. In spite of the superiority of these two theories over the other theories, each has problems need to be addressed. Aristotelian theory does not seem to be very successful in showing that the spices (kinds) are unchangeable or at (...) least does not explain it. Simmons's theory also returns to Aristotelian theory. While outlining the challenges to any theory, the final suggestion of the paper is that with inspiration of Simmons' theory and introducing a relation between the generalities (universal Whatness), create a modification in Aristotelian theory to overcome the challenge of the irreductive challenge of Species (kinds) Simons' theory, in some sense, collapses back to Aristotelian Theory. (shrink)

Research in second language learning has identified the absence of metacognition among learners as one of the major problems contributing to students’ inability to comprehend listening texts. Moreover, the shift to remote teaching due to COVID-19 has made it more crucial for teachers and learners to adapt to new modes of teaching and learning. This accentuates the need for effective listening strategy instruction. This study conducted at a university in Oman, is unique in two ways: first, it seeks out teachers’ (...) perceptions of metacognitive strategy instruction in remote teaching; and second, the intervention in the form of explicit metacognitive strategy instruction is offered online. This paper presents the findings of the study, which focused on the following: teachers’ perception of students’ listening difficulties; teachers’ perceptions of metacognitive strategies and their explicit instruction; the role of metacognitive strategy awareness and instruction in improving student participation and skills in listening; challenges encountered in teaching listening during remote teaching; and overcoming challenges of teaching metacognitive strategies in remote teaching. This mixed-method study collected data through questionnaires and interviews with 10 faculty members and 75 students. The findings show that teachers face several challenges, such as time limitations, shortened semesters, unfamiliar coursebook contexts, and assessment practices. For strategy instruction, teachers utilized collaborative lesson planning and resources and virtual flipped classrooms, among others. We conclude that metacognitive strategy instruction can provide better scaffolding during listening instruction and recommends further exploration of students’ use of metacognitive strategies in other academic contexts. (shrink)

I have read the article "Retract or be damned: a dangerous moment for science and the public" by Kamran Abbasi. The article discusses the growing problem of retractions in scientific literature, and argues that this is a threat to the integrity of science and the public's trust in science.