The English biologist and philosopher, Richard Dawkins, in his simplicity argument claims that the basic rules of physics are simple, so it is actually more likely that the relatively simple laws of nature would be came into existence for no reason than that they would be designed by a God whose being would have to be more complex than they are. Thus, there is no God. By contrast, keith Ward and other theist philosophers like Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga with separating “exclusive” and “inclusive” simplicity, defends from “integrative” simplicity of God. The existence of God integrates all elements, products of evolution and natural basic rules, in a comprehensive system, thus, it is simplest explanation, while Dawkins’s materialistic view, is not enough explanatory. So “simplicity argument”, is in fact, “the fallacy of simplicity”. In this article, it is tried to deny Dawkins’s simplicity argument.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to examine and analyze the critiques of the theory of the “ Matthew effect" with the existing laws in physics and their approach to each other to clearly and objectively generalize the debates of critics of this theory in the sociology of science. Methodology: The approach of the present research is qualitative and the library and document methods, evidence-based, and content and comparative analysis (bibliometrics) were used to answer the research questions. Findings: There are factors and norms in beings, including the dimensions of the Jones model in scientific communities (scientists, universities, and journals), as well as temperature and pressure in the density of objects, which affect them through changes and transformations. So, scientific communities and the density of objects are not subconsciously different in forms and degrees. For example, the density of copper at a temperature of 100 degrees Celsius is lower than the density of copper at a temperature of zero degrees Celsius, and similarly, the progress of the scientific community of third world countries is less than developed countries due to lack of quantitative and qualitative indicators. Conclustion: Just as the density of an object changes as the motion of its molecules with increasing and decreasing temperature or pressure, different communities are not spontaneously at lower and upper scientific levels. Rather, each of the scientific communities, under the received scientific benefits, is expected to gain a worthy position according to their set of factors and talents; and visibility is achieved according to the capacity of each scientific community.

It is shown that the understanding and applications of Newton’s laws are not so easy for students on the actual problems in their life. In the other hands, the physics of flight is one of the attractive and beautiful subjects for most of them. The different motions of paper plains are learned by teaching the physics of flight. This subject is applied for teaching the concepts and applications of Newton’s laws in a circular motion. In our study 50 (boys and girls) students are participated in three separated paper plane flight workshops. They designed and made different kinds of paper planes which had special motions according to the physics’ laws. A comparison between the pre-exam and post-exam shows the increasing of the correct answers. It is shown that the workshops could have a positive influence on the understanding of the concepts and applications of Newton’s laws. So there was an enhancement on the attitude of students about physics and its applications.

Hempel's Dilemma is among several arguments posed against physicalism. Physicalists can respond to this dilemma in several ways. The present article aims to analyze Andrew Melnyk and Janice Dowell's responses based on their specific accounts about the conception of the term "physical". Melnyk's account is based upon a scientific realist's approach to natural sciences. We will focus on and discuss about that weather we can adopt such an approach to the present science and in particular the present physics or not. Dowell, however, defends an account according to witch ideal future physics should be replaced by an ideal science that has hallmarks of a scientific theory and differs in its subject matter. The author wants to show that these accounts, each one in respect to particular aspects, cannot play the given role in formulation of the physicalism thesis.