This study, students' perceptions of the image of a scientist in the enhancement of achievement in senior school Biology, was carried out using survey research design in Ogbia and Yenagoa Local Government Areas of Bayelsa State. Four research questions and three null hypotheses were posted. The population of the study was 12,315 Senior School Three Biology students. The sample of the study was 2,400 Senior School Three Biology Students. A purposive sampling technique was used to obtain the sample of the study. Two validated and reliable instruments, Perception of the Image of a Scientist Task and Students' School Promotion Examination Results Sheet, were used to collect data for this study. Data were analyzed using mean, standard deviation, frequency and z-test. The results were that more Senior School Three Biology Students perceived that a scientist is a male than those who perceived a scientist as a female. The female students who perceived that a scientist is a male were more than their female counterparts who perceived that scientist is a female. The researcher recommended, among others, that more female students should be encouraged to study science, including Biology and related courses to disabuse the perception that more males than females are scientists; science teachers should teach the students history and contributions of scientists to concepts in science and development of the society.

Thomistic Biblicism may be understood as an approach that brings together the philosophical and theological resources of Thomas Aquinas with the witness of Sacred Scripture, particularly through the complementary relationship between faith and reason. At the heart of this approach is Aquinas’s effort to articulate the intellectual content of Christian faith by drawing upon Aristotelian philosophy without reducing revelation to philosophy. Biblical Thomism, in particular, seeks to recover the profoundly biblical character of Aquinas’s theology by examining the dynamic relationship between Scripture and speculative theology, as well as the interaction between doctrine, moral teaching, and Christian life. The present study proposes the expression “logical conviviality” to describe this relationship. Conviviality, from the Latin con-vivere, meaning “to live with,” suggests a harmonious and mutually enriching coexistence. Applied to Thomistic Biblicism, it refers to the ordered coexistence of biblical revelation, rational inquiry, metaphysical reflection, and theological tradition. Thomism, as a systematic philosophical and theological tradition, cannot simply be identified with a form of Biblicism that accepts isolated biblical texts without philosophical or theological interpretation. Rather, Aquinas integrates Scripture with reason, tradition, metaphysics, and rigorous logical analysis. The “logical conviviality of Thomistic Biblicism,” therefore, denotes a relationship in which reason does not compete with revelation but serves it, while revelation provides the horizon within which reason operates. This paper examines this relationship through three major works of Aquinas: The Summa Theologiae, the Summa Contra Gentiles, and the Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard. It argues that, for Aquinas, Scripture provides the foundational content of sacred doctrine, while logic, philosophy, and metaphysics provide the intellectual means through which that content is clarified, defended, and contemplated.

Artificial intelligence has become increasingly embedded in the practices through which human beings acquire, organize, evaluate, communicate, and act upon information. The philosophical problem raised by this development is therefore not exhausted by the familiar observation that artificial intelligence sometimes produces false information. More fundamental is the question of whether systems that generate apparently knowledgeable discourse can participate appropriately in epistemic practices when they do not possess the kinds of beliefs, experiences, intentions, understanding, or testimonial commitments ordinarily associated with human knowers. This paper develops the concept of epistemic impropriety as a normative framework for examining that problem. Epistemic impropriety is distinguished from epistemic error and epistemic harm: an error concerns falsity or inadequate justification; a harm concerns damage suffered in one's capacity as a knower; impropriety concerns the violation or distortion of norms governing responsible inquiry, testimony, justification, interpretation, authority, and epistemic agency. The paper argues that the central epistemic danger of generative artificial intelligence lies in the possibility that linguistic plausibility may acquire the social authority normally associated with justified knowledge. This danger manifests itself in hallucination, the manufacture of apparent understanding, the illusion of comprehensiveness, the substitution of plausibility for justification, algorithmic opacity, automation bias, synthetic testimony, epistemic injustice, hermeneutical exclusion, epistemic infantilization, and the gradual displacement of human intellectual agency. At the same time, the paper rejects the simplistic conclusion that artificial intelligence is epistemically worthless. AI may function as an epistemic technology, a cognitive aid, and a participant in distributed practices of inquiry without thereby becoming an autonomous knower or epistemic authority in the full human sense. The appropriate philosophical response is consequently neither technological rejection nor uncritical enthusiasm, but the cultivation of a critical human–AI epistemic relationship governed by provenance, transparency, evidential calibration, contestability, pluralism, human judgment, and responsibility. The ultimate question is not merely whether artificial intelligence can generate answers, but whether its participation enables human beings to become better knowers.