Professor

If we have libertarian free will, then it is plausible to believe that the occurrences of certain physical events have irreducible and ineliminable mental explanations. According to a strong version of (metaphysical) naturalism, everything in the physical world is in principle explicable in nonmental terms. Therefore, the truth of naturalism implies that libertarian choices cannot explain the occurrences of any physical events. In this paper, I example a methodological argument for the truth of naturalism and conclude that the argument fails. I then consider additional concerns raised against the reality of libertarian freedom. First, I examine the claim that if a physical event E is not causally determined to occur by another physical event, then there is no way to account for the difference between E’s occurring randomly and E’s being causally determined to occur by a mental event. Second, I consider the assertion that the affirmation of libertarianism is a mind-of-the-gaps version of the God-of-the-gaps objection to a divine explanation of a physical event. Third, I take up the question of whether the inability of libertarians (or anyone else) to pinpoint precisely where the initial physical effects of libertarian choices occur is a good reason for rejecting libertarianism. Fourth, I examine the claim that belief in the existence of the soul or immaterial mind is the result of an explanatory hypothesis to account for how libertarian free choices can causally produce physical effects. Fifth, I look at the traditional objection to substance dualism from the impossibility of causal interaction between a soul and its body.

Nowadays, one of the topics of interest to researchers is the authority of teachers, and fades it in universities. Look at the reality in the society and comparing with historical context motivates researchers to question why some of the professors at the university have less authority. For this purpose, this research is trying to focus on economic and demographic factors, to answer questions. The method used in this research is descriptive analysis using survey techniques and data collection tool is a questionnaire. The population consisted of professors of Kermanshah PNU in the academic year 2011-2012, total number of them is equal to 258. Due to the large size of the population, using the Lin sampling table sample size is 258, which for the study based on striated random sampling were selected. In the present study, face validity assessment method and construct validity based on factor analysis were used. To determine the reliability of the statements of each variable, Cronbach's alpha used. Results using SPSS21 and Amos21 statistical software were analyzed. Mean traditional authority equal to 13.57, then charisma authority13.54, and intellectual authority is 18.72. The dimensions compared with the average expected for above dimension respectively traditional authority 15, charisma authority 12, intellectual authority is 15. The results show that there is a significant relationship between relative deprivation and professor’s authority (r=-0.301), the use of mass media and professor’s authority (r=0.161), monthly income and professor’s authority (r=-0.153). In addition, the results of comparison show that average of the professor’s authority among the courses is different, and this difference based on f test is significant. The average professor’s authority, for people with different degrees is different. The results of Multiple regression indicate that the traditional authority (T=4.335), self-esteem (T =3.925), charismatic authority (T =3.788), and the relative deprivation (T =-2.287), total 0.42 from internal changes explain the value of professor’s authority variables. Furthermore, the results of structural equation shows that Chi square insignificant CMIN is equal to 211.143, square root index mean residual square or RMSEA is equal to 0.075, RMR index or residuals mean square root is equal to 0.098, the Chi-square to the degrees of freedom ratio CMIN.dF in model is 3.199, against the CFI comparative fit index 0.926, and comparative fit index thrifty PCFI, are equal to 0.671 Comparative and thrifty indicators for evaluating the overall model calculated that show collected data to support the theoretical model considered.