Nikolaos J. Skubas, MD, FASE

• Associate Professor of Anesthesiology
• Director, Cardiac Anesthesia
• Weill Cornell Medical College
• New York, New York

For some time the news was concealed while the few in the secret worked frenziedly to ice the veins and stake claims 50 mg glyset free shipping. Some went direct from Australia purchase generic glyset on-line, which had had a gold rush of its own in the I830s buy 50mg glyset overnight delivery. The people of Cutler cheapest generic glyset uk, in Maine buy glyset 50 mg cheap, built and rigged their own ship and sailed her round the Horn to San Francisco Bay generic glyset 50mg free shipping. But many more stayed because there were ample other opportunities in California, besides gold. San Francisco had become a boomtown of 15,000 people, crowded with gamblers, financiers, prostitutes and wild women, actors and reporters, budding politicians and businessmen. Nevada mining is described in glorious detail in another Mark Twain masterwork, Roughing It, which has an exact description of all the mining processes then in use and the skulduggery, violence, greed, and disappointments which surrounded them. When the editor of the Grass Valley Telegraph attacked her in print she literally horsewhipped him and he had to slink out of town. Grass Valley and Nevada City became centers of the richest and most continuous gold mining in California, with the North Star Mine, the Eureka, and the Empire setting the pace. Until its gold came on the market, there had been a chronic shortage of specie, especially gold bullion, from which the United States, in particular, had suffered. Until the I850s in fact there was no true gold standard simply because there was not enough gold to maintain it. Once California gold began to circulate, the development of American capital markets accelerated and the huge expansion of the second half of the century became financially possible. From the early 1840s railroads began 259 obtaining both state and federal land for the use of immigrants. The Illinois Central advertised abroad; so did the Union Pacific and Northern Pacific. By the I850s a great deal of public and private money was being spent on telling the world about America. Immigration was going up all the time, allowing for fluctuations which reflected the trade cycle. Never before or since was immigration so high per capita of the American population. They came from all over Europe, but mostly from Britain, Ireland, and Germany, the Irish staying east of the Alleghenies, the Germans pushing on into the Midwest to farm. American hotels were often distinguished and aggrandized by a central lobby, under a rotunda (the hotel atrium of the 1980s and 1990s is a rediscovery of this feature). The English novelist Anthony Trollope called Lowell `the realisation of a commercial Utopia. At Lowell in 1846, it was reported that operatives worked thirteen hours a day, from dawn till dusk in winter (but this is from a hostile account). In Rhode Island entire families, including small children, contracted to work for employers. As one of them put it in 1839: `During two years spent in traveling through every part of the Union, I have only once been asked for alms. Thackeray, who intended to write books about their travels, visited one or more prisons (as well as workhouses, homes for fallen women, and similar dismal but worthy places). It was prisons which drew to America the most perceptive and influential of the European observers, Alexis de Tocqueville. He subsequently published his Democracy in America, part one in 1835, two in 1840. Volume one is mainly about America, and is tremendously optimistic; volume two is also about France, and tends to pessimism. But this work, and his copious letters, and his subsequent memoirs provide wonderful glimpses of American society in the 1830s. I must confess it is an odd coincidence that we should have arrived in Memphis to witness the expulsion, or perhaps the dissolution, of one of the last vestiges of one of the oldest American nations. Coming from a country where the abuse of power by the clergy had made anticlericalism endemic, he was amazed to find a country where it was virtually unknown. He saw, for the first time, Christianity presented not as a totalitarian society but as an unlimited society, a competitive society, intimately wedded to the freedom and market system of the secular world. Each man learns to think, to act for himself, without counting on the support of an outside force which, however vigilant one supposes it to be, can never answer all social needs. There would be a general outcry, a kind of popular uprising, against anyone who tried to introduce a contrary system, and everyone would say it would be better to have no education at all than an education of that sort. Reflecting on his conversations in 262 Boston, he noted: `Enlightenment, more than anything else, makes [a republic] possible. The mass of people who understand public affairs, who are acquainted with laws and precedents, who have a sense of the interests, well understood, of the nation, and the faculty to understand them, is greater here than any other place in the world. The state was trying to make itself better; the people were trying too, not for want of urging. The great orator Daniel Webster took the occasion of the unveiling of the Bunker Hill monument in Boston (June 17, 1825) to intone: `Our proper business is improvement. This was amazing even by the standards in England, regarded then as the world pioneer in municipal utilities. Moreover, this magnificent waterworks, in the best classical architecture, expanded from the banks of the Schuylkill, and its grounds embraced a huge area of the country, and in order to preserve it from pollution Philadelphia ultimately created the largest urban park in the world, in the process preserving for posterity all the splendid riverside villas we have already described. There were, to be sure, early signs of skulduggery in the provision of municipal services. Open competition was driving down prices relentlessly: thus the first penny newspaper dates from 1840, an amazing price by European (even British) standards at that time. In the newer states, Ohio for instance, the sixteenth section of each planned township was devoted to education. In Louisiana the population density (1860) was only eleven per square mile; in Virginia (including what is now West Virginia) it was fourteen, by contrast with Massachusetts, where it was 127. Census data show that by 1840 some 78 percent of the total population was literate (91 percent of the white population), and this was mainly due to a rise in national school enrollment rates: from 35 percent in 1830 (ages five to nineteen), to 50. All the same, there were still 1 million adult illiterates in America in 1850, of whom 500,000 were in the South. Most of these illiterates were not new immigrants (though that too was a problem, because of language) but blacks, an early indication of trouble to come. At the end of the 1760s, America, on the eve of Independence, had nine colleges, or universities as they were later called.

Syndromes

• Attention problems
• Amyloidosis
• Hemolytic anemia
• Medicines to control heart failure and help the kidneys remove extra fluids
• Premature infants
• Injury caused by falls
• Salt-reduced diet
• Drowsiness

However discount glyset 50 mg mastercard, if an owner hires goods to a person who wrongfully sells them to an innocent third party cheap glyset 50mg with amex, it is the owner who retains title to the goods; (d) a further possibility would be to have a rule that wherever the owner has been negligent in protecting his ownership discount 50mg glyset with mastercard, an innocent buyer should obtain a good title cheap glyset 50 mg with visa. An example of this might be where the owner has had his car stolen after having left it unlocked with the keys in the ignition and the engine running purchase glyset 50mg line. However 50 mg glyset free shipping, although negligence can be the foundation of one of the exceptions in English law (estoppel by negligence: see below), the 434 Chapter 20: Transfer of Title by a Non-Owner negligence of the owner will generally not be a factor in determining whether or not the owner retains title to his goods; (e) apportionment of the loss between the innocent parties is a further possible solution. Perhaps the most potent argument against this solution is that it would introduce a significant element of uncertainty into the law. We can say, reasonably safely, that the property in the goods will normally pass, at the latest, when the goods are delivered to the buyer. However, the seller who asks for cash on delivery is likely to be at a substantial competitive disadvantage in relation to competitors who allow their customers the normal trade credit. Another solution is for the seller to make a thorough credit check on the buyer before selling on credit, and also ask for bank and trade references. However, the problem with credit checks is that circumstances change so rapidly in business and, in any case, credit information is necessarily historical, so that even the best of credit checks may fail to reveal that the buyer is on the verge of insolvency. In order to try to combat the risks involved in supplying goods on trade credit, the seller of goods may insert a clause into the contract of sale by which he reserves title to goods until he has been paid for the goods. Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act provides that where the seller reserves the right of disposal until certain conditions are fulfilled, the property in the 435 Law for Non-Law Students goods does not pass to the buyer until the conditions imposed by the seller are fulfilled. Thus, if the seller reserves the property in the goods (that is, the right of disposal) until the price is paid (that is, a condition is fulfilled), the property does not pass until the price has been paid. You will recall that, as a general rule, all contractual terms must be settled at the time of the contract. However, s 19 allows the reservation of the right of disposal to be made either by the terms of the contract or (and this can only apply in the case of unascertained goods) at the time of the appropriation. The effect of a basic retention of title clause is to create a conditional sale (the condition being that property does not pass until the price is paid). However, the position is complicated by the fact that in many cases, the buyer under the conditional sale agreement does not intend to retain the goods for his own use. He may intend to do one of the following: (a) the buyer may buy them intending to sell them on to a third party. If he does this, the sub-buyer will usually get a good title to them under s 25 of the Sale of Goods Act (sale by a buyer in possession) and no provision to the contrary in a contract between the original seller and buyer can displace this rule. However, the original seller sometimes attempts to tackle this problem by inserting a clause in the contract to the effect that he will be entitled, not to the goods, but to the proceeds of the sale to the third party; (b) the buyer may intend to mix the goods which are the subject of the retention of title clause, with other goods in order to manufacture new goods. There appears to be little doubt that a simple retention of title clause, which creates a conditional sale, will normally be effective. In such cases, the validity of the clauses have been challenged by administrative receivers or liquidators, whose job is to try to preserve the assets of the insolvent company for the benefit of its creditors. What encourages the receiver or liquidator to challenge the retention of title clause is that the circumstances of some cases are such that it is arguable that the retention of title clause goes further than a simple retention of title, and instead creates a security interest in the goods. The practical effect is 436 Chapter 20: Transfer of Title by a Non-Owner often similar, but the legal distinction is crucial because, unless a security charge is registered (either with the Registrar of Companies, in the case of a company giving the security or at the High Court in the case of an individual), the charge is void. The difference between a valid retention of title clause and a clause which creates a security charge is broadly as follows. Here, the buyer is regarded as creating an encumbrance on his own rights in relation to the goods. Creation and registration of charges In order to understand the nature of the difficulties facing the more elaborate Romalpa clauses, it is necessary to make an excursion into the realms of insolvency and security law. The main argument pursued by receivers and liquidators is that the reservation of title clause creates a charge over the goods. Generally, for a charge over goods to be valid, the charge must be registered in a public register. This is so that a prospective purchaser of the goods may search the register and thus discover that the goods are subject to the charge. What creates the problem with Romalpa clauses is that there are a number of situations in which a non-owner is allowed to possess goods in circumstances where, to a third party, he may appear to be the owner, but without a legal requirement for the true owner to register his interest in the goods. If the charge is not registered then it is void: the right to receive payment of the price (and to reasonable interest on the unpaid price) remains, but there are no rights over the goods themselves. Since the whole point of a retention of title clause and its variants is to be able to claim goods (or money which represents the goods), if the clause is held to be void because it is an unregistered charge, the seller is no better off than if he had not imposed the clause in the first place. If the charge is created over the property of a registered company, s 395 of the Companies Act 1985 provides that the charge must be registered with the Registrar of Companies, within 21 days of its creation. Details of the charge 437 Law for Non-Law Students are then filed with the remainder of the documents relating to the company and may be discovered by any member of the public who conducts a search relating to the company. If goods are charged by an individual, rather than a company, the charge must be registered at the Central Office of the High Court, within seven days of its creation, under the provisions of the Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment Act 1882. The theory is that if the borrower is tempted to offer the same goods as security for a further loan from a different lender, the proposed new lender can conduct a search of the register and discover the existence of the previous transaction. In practice, because of a number of technical problems associated with bills of sale, they are relatively rarely used nowadays. It would, of course, be possible for a seller to register a retention of title clause, but even if this were done, it would often not help a great deal. This is because, where a company becomes insolvent, it has usually borrowed money from a bank. Thus, we could have both the bank and the seller claiming that the goods belong to them. However, where there are competing charges, they do not rank proportionately according to the amount of the respective debts, but rank in order of creation. Thus, if the bank has created its charge before the seller, the bank will have priority. Since, under the rules of insolvency, there will usually be other creditors with priority over the seller, it is unlikely that, when creditors with prior claims have been paid, there will be anything left for the seller, even though he has registered his charge. If the seller has created a registered charge before the bank, then either the bank will refuse to make the proposed loan to the buyer or, alternatively, the bank will insist that the charge registered by the seller is vacated (that is, cancelled) before it will make the loan. In addition, the seller is usually given the right to enter the premises of the buyer in order to repossess the goods, if they are not paid for in accordance with the contract. Other aspects of the Romalpa case have since been heavily criticised, but this particular principle has been supported in a number of cases. However, in Chaigley farms v Crawford, Kaye and Grayshire (1996), a farmer delivered livestock to an abbatoir for slaughter, under a retention of title clause. It was held that the animals lost their identity once they had been slaughtered and turned into carcasses. It was held that the legal title to the goods passed to Bond Worth under s 18, r 1 when the fibre was delivered to them. The crucial point is that the contract made Bond Worth the legal owner of the fibre and, in conferring rights in relation to the fibre on the seller, Bond Worth were creating a charge over their own goods. If, as in Romalpa, the seller had retained the legal title, the retention of title clause would have been valid, at least in respect of the unsold fibre, though the claims to the proceeds of sale and the new goods would probably have failed. For example, Ashok sells goods to Ben Ltd under a contract by which Ashok retains title until all monies owed by Ben to Ashok have been paid. Clough Mill supplied yarn to the buyer under a contract which provided: the ownership of the material shall remain with the seller, which reserves the right to dispose of the material until payment in full for all the material has been received by it in accordance with the terms of this contract or until such time as the buyer sells the material to its customers the buyers got into financial difficulties and a receiver was appointed. Held: as the buyer never obtained any title to the yarn, there was no question of the buyer creating a charge over the yarn. The judges realised the possibility that the seller might be getting more than he was entitled to if the buyer had paid part of the price of the yarn, but the seller retained title to the whole of the yarn. If he sold more, he must account to the buyer for the surplus: that is, the seller was not allowed to make a profit out of the situation. His only obligation to the buyer was to repay the amount the buyer had already paid. A further practical point was the possibility that a different seller might have provided goods towards the manufacture of the new article and 440 Chapter 20: Transfer of Title by a Non-Owner those goods might also be subject to a similar retention of title clause. To hold that the retention of title clause was valid in relation to the newly manufactured article would mean that more than one person could validly claim to be the owner of the article! However, in this case, the retention of title clause related to resin which the sellers knew that the buyers intended to mix with wood chippings in order to manufacture chipboard. Borden claimed title to the finished product on the ground that they still owned the resin which had been used in the manufacture of the chipboard. The court held that the resin had ceased to exist as resin when it was subjected to an irreversible process by being mixed with hardener and incorporated into the chipboard. Further, the seller could not retain title to the chipboard for the simple reason that they had never possessed any title to the chipboard. It not only purported to retain title in goods supplied which were still in the possession of the defendants, it also asserted title to any goods which the foil had been used to manufacture. In addition to taking possession of fi50,000 worth of tin foil still in the possession of the defendants, the receiver also received fi35,000 cash, representing the proceeds of a sub-sale by the defendants. We have already seen that the plaintiffs were allowed to repossess their aluminium foil. The further question arose as to whether the fi35,000 also belonged to the plaintiffs. The court held that as property in the foil had never passed to the defendants, the proceeds of the sale of the foil by the defendants must belong to the plaintiffs. However, this aspect of the Romalpa case has been heavily criticised and subsequent cases have managed to distinguish it. One problem is that in order to trace proceeds of sale, there must be a fiduciary relationship between the buyer and the seller, which creates a duty to account for the proceeds. An example would be where the buyer, when re-selling, sells as agent of the original seller. However, in such a case, the fiduciary nature of the relationship would require the buyer to account to the original seller, not only for the price, but for any profit made on the sale. However, in Re Andrabell (1984), the court refused to hold that a fiduciary relationship had been created.

It was held that the delegation was valid because it was authorised by the principal cheap glyset american express. It was also held that the principal and the subagent were in a direct contractual relationship (that is glyset 50mg without prescription, privity of contract existed between them) glyset 50 mg visa. Because of this cheap glyset online amex, the principal was able to recover the profit made by the sub-agent: the sub-agent was in breach of duty in selling the ship to himself and re-selling at a profit buy glyset 50mg low price. If there had been no privity of contract buy glyset 50mg line, the owner would have had to sue his agent, who in turn would have had to sue the sub-agent. If there is no privity of contract, the agent remains liable to the principal for the default of the sub-agent. He is himself the agent of the agent and as such, the sub-agent will be in breach of his duty to the agent. There his duty ends and in relation to breaches of duty by the sub-agent to the principal or the principal to the sub-agent, each may sue the other. He must keep accurate accounts of his transactions on behalf of the principal and must produce them on request. Duty to avoid conflict of interest the agent must avoid putting himself in a situation where his own interest conflicts with that of his principal. The reason for this is that as agent he owes a duty to obtain the best price possible for his principal. The agent sued for specific performance but failed on the ground that his conflict of interest amounted to a breach of duty. The agent owes the principal a duty to purchase the property for the lowest price possible, whereas his own personal interest means that he may be seeking to sell for the highest price possible. In Armstrong v Jackson (1917), Jackson, a stockbroker, was instructed to buy 600 shares in a company on behalf of Armstrong. Jackson pretended to acquire the shares on the stockmarket but in fact sold the principal 600 of his own shares in the company. Some years later the principal discovered the truth and sued to have the contract set aside. Held: a conflict of interest had arisen and consequently Armstrong was entitled to have the contract set aside. Although delay is normally a bar to claiming rescission of a contract, in the case of breach of this duty, time does not begin to run against the principal until the breach of duty is discovered. He argued that if he had known that Perot wanted both properties, he could have used the knowledge to negotiate a better price for his own property. He also argued that Coopers were in breach of their duty by putting themselves in a position where their duties to two principals could conflict. The plaintiff was aware that Coopers would be acting for vendors of comparable properties, and that in doing so would receive confidential information from those other vendors. In order for there 491 Law for Non-Law Students to be a breach of duty, the agency contract between the plaintiff and the defendant would have to include: (a) a term requiring the defendants to disclose such confidential information to the plaintiff; and (b) a term precluding the defendant from acting for rival vendors; and (c) a term precluding the vendors from seeking to earn commission by acting for a rival vendor. Duty not to make a secret profit An agent is must not use his position to make a secret profit. In principle, if the agent has made a secret profit: (a) he will be made to give up the profit to his principal; and (b) he will lose his entitlement to remuneration. However, the latter rule is not enforced where it appears that the agent did not act dishonestly, that is, where he did not realise that what he was doing was in breach of duty. In Boardman v Phipps (1967), two people, who had not been appointed as agents but who were, nevertheless, acting as agents for trustees, were appointed to negotiate with a company in which the trust had shares. As a result of information received while acting as agents, they recommended that the trust should buy a controlling interest, since there was a large profit to be made. They could only have made the profit because of the information they received as agents: such information would not have been available to them as members of the public. In Hippisley v Knee Bros (1905), Hippisley employed Knee Bros to sell goods by auction. This involved Knee Bros in placing advertisements, for which they charged Hippisley the gross amount. They argued that they should be allowed to keep the discount since, if Hippisley had placed the adverts themselves, they would not have been granted a discount. However, since the agents had not acted dishonestly, they were entitled to their remuneration under the agency contract. In Boston Deep Sea Fishing and Ice Co v Ansell (1888), Ansell was the managing director of the plaintiff. Unknown to the plaintiff, the shipbuilders paid Ansell a commission on the orders. In addition, Ansell accepted payments from two other companies (in both of which he held shares), with which he placed orders on behalf of the plaintiff. When the company found out, Ansell was dismissed and the company brought an action to recover the amount of the bribes, in which they were successful. The remedies available to the principal where his agent fails to act in good faith are as follows: (a) the agent may be dismissed without notice; (b) the principal may recover any remuneration paid to the agent in respect of the transaction; (c) where the agent has been given a bribe or made a secret profit, the principal may recover the amount of the bribe or profit. Where the agent has been fraudulent, the principal may sue the agent for damages for the tort of deceit. However, this is an alternative to suing for the amount of the profit or the bribe; (d) where the agent has been given a bribe by the third party, the principal may rescind the contract made with the third party. Remuneration There is no restriction upon the source from which the remuneration may be derived. It is commonly made by way of salary, fee, commission, or share of 493 Law for Non-Law Students profits. However, where it is clear from the circumstances that the agent expected to receive remuneration and the principal expected to pay it, the court will usually imply a term giving a right to remuneration where none has been expressly stated. Section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 provides that where, under a contract for the supply of a service, the consideration for the contract is: (a) not determined by the contract; or (b) left to be determined in a manner agreed by the contract; or (c) determined by the course of dealing between the parties, there is an implied term that the party contracting with the supplier will pay a reasonable price. In such a case, the court will decide what remuneration is reasonable in the circumstances. Where the circumstances indicate that at the outset both parties expected the agent to be remunerated, an amount of remuneration may be awarded, to avoid the principal unjustly enriching himself at the expense of the agent. His contract did not provide for any remuneration, although W had understood that he would be remunerated by a share in any concessions obtained. However, the trial judge also stated that if he had made an award based upon a quantum meruit the amount of the award would have been fi5,000. On appeal to the House of Lords, it was held that the trial judge was not entitled to write the contract for the parties by detennining that L was entitled to a particular percentage of the concession. If the remuneration is by the terms of the contract, left to be fixed at the discretion of the principal, the agent will only be entitled to such remuneration as the principal decides. In Re Richmond Gate Property Ltd (1965), the plaintiff was appointed joint managing director of the company. The company was wound up after the plaintiff had acted as managing director for four months. The articles 494 Chapter 23: the Duties of the Agent and the Principal gave the board of directors a discretion whether or not to award remuneration and, as the directors had made no award, the plaintiff had no entitlement. The agent must be the effective cause of the operative event If the terms of the contract are that the agent is entitled to remuneration on his being responsible for the happening of a particular event, for example, introducing a purchaser, effecting a sale, etc, he will be entitled to his remuneration only if he is the effective cause of the operative event. In Coles v Enoch (1939), the plaintiff was told that he could seek a tenant for an empty shop owned by the defendant. A third party, W, overheard the call and, on being informed of the general location of the shop by A, searched and found it. Coles claimed commission on the lease on the basis that he had been the effective cause of the introduction of W. Held: Coles was not the effective cause of the lease: W had found the shop for himself (although the court stated that this was a borderline case). For a case which came on the other side of the borderline, see Nahum v Royal Holloway and Bedford New College (1999), where the claimant was asked to find buyers for certain paintings on commission. He found a buyer for the Gainsborough, for which he was paid the agreed commission. He had brought about the introduction of the buyer to the seller and so was entitled to the agreed commission. Note that there are provisions relating to the entitlement of commercial agents to commission under the 1993 Regulations set out below. The right to earn commission As a general rule, there is no implied promise by the principal that he will not act in such a way as to deprive the agent of the opportunity to earn his commission. In Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v Cooper (1941), L employed C, an 495 Law for Non-Law Students estate agent, to find a purchaser for a chain of four cinemas. However, before a binding contract of sale was concluded, the seller decided to withdraw the properties from the market. C therefore sued for the agreed remuneration on the basis that there was an implied term in the contract of agency to the effect that L would not deprive C of the opportunity to earn the agreed commission. Therefore, C must be deemed to have taken the risk that the owner might decide not to sell. Thus, if the agent introduces such a person and then the owner withdraws his property from the market, the agent will nevertheless have brought about the event upon which commission was payable and will, therefore, be entitled to the commission. The Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 Regulation 6 provides that a commercial agent shall be entitled to remuneration according to the customary practice of the place where he carries on his activities and, if there is no such customary practice, to reasonable remuneration. Do not forget that this Regulation applies only to those who buy or sell goods but that those who supply a service are entitled to reasonable remuneration under s 15 of the Supply of Goods and Service Act 1982. Regulations 7 to 12 deal only with the situation where an agent is remunerated either wholly or in part by commission. Regulation 7(1) provides that the agent shall be entitled to commission on commercial transactions concluded during the agency period: (i) where the transaction has been concluded as a result of his action; or (ii) where the transaction has been concluded with a third party whom the agent has previously acquired as a customer for transactions of the same kind. Regulation 7(2) provides that a commercial agent shall also be entitled to commission on transactions concluded within a specific geographical area or by one of a specific group of customers, where the agent has been given 496 Chapter 23: the Duties of the Agent and the Principal exclusive rights of agency in respect to that geographical area or that group of customers. Regulation 8 gives a right to commission after the agency is terminated, where the transaction was due to the efforts of the agent during his agency and is entered into within a reasonable time after the agency terminates, or where, in relation to the circumstance laid down in reg 7, the order of the third party reached either the principal or the commercial agent before the agency terminated. Regulation 9 provides that where commission is due to a previous agent under regs 7 and 8, it shall not also be payable to a new agent unless it is equitable in the circumstances to share the commission between the new agent and the previous agent. Regulation 10(1) provides that the commission becomes due as soon as either: (a) the principal has executed the transaction; or (b) the principal should have executed the transaction; or (c) the third party has executed the transaction.

Swinburne also holds to a rational form of theology buy glyset paypal, but tries to justify the possibility of miracle claims albeit ongoing scientific discoveries buy discount glyset on-line. According to him purchase glyset 50 mg without prescription, there are empirical arguments which order glyset, taken together purchase 50mg glyset amex, point to a high degree of probability that God exists buy glyset with amex, and that he works miracles. In order to understand his position, I will first offer an explanation for this kind of revival in natural 140 theology during the twentieth and in the twenty-first century. This argument had an enormous influence on the downfall of natural theology in the nineteenth century, and on the subsequent birth of liberal theology. Immanuel Kant also declared the impossibility of natural theology, but from a different philosophical point of view. This means that, as human beings, we are structurally equipped to perceive the world an sich (the world as it is in-itself) only according to what our epistemic structures allow us to perceive. In the Anglo-Saxon world, natural theology also came under attack by the schools of logical positivism and the later Wittgenstein. From a picture theory of language, logical positivists such as Rudolf Carnap and A. On the basis of the later works of Wittgenstein, some philosophers, for example D. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. According to this approach, the suggestion of natural theology that the logical grammar of these utterances is similar was rejected because it assumes that God is an actor in reality, which was judged as a confusion of 141 language games. However, during the 1960s and 1970s, a number of Christian philosophers in the Anglo-Saxon analytic tradition, such as Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff and also Richard Swinburne, sought to formulate clear and precise arguments to revive the position of natural theology. Against the background of developments in the philosophy of science, one can speak of a resurrection of natural theology which had, and still has, an important voice in the debate on miracles. Developments in the twentieth and the twenty-first century show that the earlier negative verdict on natural theology was premature. Kant assumed that they were synthetic a priori truths, but this view needed correction as a result of 143 findings in quantum mechanics and on the basis of the theory of general relativity. Logical positivism has also been abandoned, and with it, its harsh verdict on natural theology. Philips, who argue that natural theology is impossible because it is based on a confusion of different language games, has also received ample criticism. It seems a convenient solution to separate religious language from scientific language as two different games of language, but there are many theologians who disagree fundamentally with this approach, as it implies that faith would be independent of reason and empirical data. They maintain that it can be argued that empirical evidence substantiates the claim that God can be regarded as the cause of miracles. However, developments in science from around 1825 showed that these Euclidean axioms applied only in the special case of zero curvature. The Mathematics of Harmony: From Euclid to Contemporary Mathematics and Computer Science. Swinburne faced the challenge to come up with an argument in favour of miracles while not contravening the scientific method. Formulated differently, Swinburne aimed to justify the concept of a miracle logically by arguing that, although miracles refer to events in the world, they nevertheless do not lead to falsification of or adjustments to known natural laws. Swinburne argument entails, fist of all, that there are good reasons to assume that it is probable that a law of nature has indeed been violated and, secondly, that it can be argued that God has caused such an event. Accordingly, he claims that theism is a coherent scientific theory because it is a theory comparable to , although not quite the same as, generally accepted scientific theories. In this theory Swinburne considers God as a hypothesis and, as is the case in regular scientific theories, this enables research to test it by scientific methods. He argues that the scientificallyacknowledged method of inference to the best explanation (abduction) will be able to confirm theistic theory by assessing the probability of the hypothesis that God is the cause of miracles. Swinburne has been praised as one of the most significant proponents of argumentative theism today. When what happens is entirely irregular and unpredictable, its occurrence cannot be described by known natural laws. He continues the argument by maintaining that there is good evidence to suppose that events as described in the Bible, for instance a resurrection from the dead or turning water 150 into wine, are violations of a law of nature. By distinguishing repeatable violations of natural laws which would lead to falsification of these laws from non-repeatable, isolated exceptions, Swinburne argues that miracles do not have to lead to falsification of a theory. The second step of the first part of his argument is that, taking all the available evidence into consideration, it can be argued that miracles did indeed take place. However, he weighs the available evidence differently and accuses Hume of not paying attention to additional kinds of evidence, which makes his argument suspicious as there is more evidence in favour of 147 Swinburne, R. The following paragraph illustrates this approach but can be skipped if they are found to be too abstract. This is to say that a miracle M becomes more probable when we take into account evidence E that is more to be expected if M is true than if M is false. However, this strategy is open to criticism since the crucial problem is the attribution of input values in the equation. Swinburne, who already believes that miracles have occurred, uses input values his opponents would disagree with. The testimony of one witness to an occurrence of the kind of miracle which in its circumstances one would expect to happen should be sufficient to carry conviction, just as we accept the testimony of one witness to a claim that when he let go of a book which he was holding it fell to the ground. Such an agent P can produce similar effects in similar circumstances by an intentional act. Then Swinburne asks what reasons there can be to attribute a violation of a natural law E to a god as an agent. So far, this part of the argument is that a human agent can violate the regular course of nature by an intentional act. Given the subject of this study I will not elaborate in detail on his argumentation in favour of the existence of a god which can be found in the existence of God (1997). In a good C-inductive argument, the premises add up cumulatively to the probability of the conclusion. This means that the argument is constructed in such a way that argument A supports argument B, A+B together support argument C, arguments A+B+C support argument D, and so on. These arguments, when taken separately, have little probability of endorsing proposition h 155 Ibid, p. This is to say that, according to Swinburne, all the evidence and our background knowledge together indicate that it is more plausible that God 159 exists than that he does not exist. Continuing his argument from the conclusion that it is plausible that God exists, he then argues that God intentionally acts in the world by violations of natural laws.