The author contrasts the MI intelligence with single intelligence and says that single intelligence is not educable, rather it is an innate capacity.
As an educator, this criticism for MI is useful for me only because I remember to be critical to the theory and begin to search for weakness of it. Otherwise the authors view of single intelligence (non-educable and innate) shows me, as an educator, no direction about my teaching. So I find the Gardner's view (though it may not be a theory) more compelling than the authors view even if I agree that there are problems with Gardner's word choices. Rather than "multiple intelligence theory" he could use "practices of multiple abilities".
After reading the article from Turkish authors I felt the need to look their affiliation. An it was not Faculty of "İlahiyat" but it was seriously Faculty of Education.
For the first time I see that a scientific theory is tried to be challenged by a divine source rather than a scientific source. In my opinion, scientific debates should rely on scientific data and reasoning. Since divine sources describe an eternal truth, such sources make scientific debates and progress meaningless. In that sense, I think that this article's applicability and validity is open to discussion. Thank you Dinçer, it was one of the most interesting articles that I have run across so far.
This is the website for Multiple Intelligence Institute. It has information on the applications of MI and the models developed. Also current information on the MI theory can be found.
What I also find interesting is, somebody watching the video asked questions to the teacher in the video about working in Korea as a teacher. The power of social media!!