In his final essay the late physicist Victor Stenger argues for the validity of philosophy in the context of modern theoretical physics

Editor’s Note: Shortly before his death last August at the age of 79, the noted physicist and public intellectual Victor Stenger worked with two co-authors to pen an article for Scientific American. In it Stenger and co-authors address the latest eruption of a long-standing historic feud, an argument between physicists and philosophers about the nature of their disciplines and the limits of science. Can instruments and experiments (or pure reason and theoretical models) ever reveal the ultimate nature of reality? Does the modern triumph of physics make philosophy obsolete? What philosophy, if any, could modern theoretical physicists be said to possess? Stenger and his co-authors introduce and address all these profound questions in this thoughtful essay and seek to mend the growing schism between these two great schools of thought. When physicists make claims about the universe, Stenger writes, they are also engaging in a grand philosophical tradition that dates back thousands of years. Inescapably, physicists are philosophers, too. This article, Stenger’s last, appears in full below.

In April 2012 theoretical physicist, cosmologist and best-selling author Lawrence Krauss was pressed hard in an interview with Ross Andersen for The Atlantic titled “Has Physics Made Philosophy and Religion Obsolete?” Krauss’s response to this question dismayed philosophers because he remarked, “philosophy used to be a field that had content,” to which he later added,

“Philosophy is a field that, unfortunately, reminds me of that old Woody Allen joke, “those that can’t do, teach, and those that can’t teach, teach gym.” And the worst part of philosophy is the philosophy of science; the only people, as far as I can tell, that read work by philosophers of science are other philosophers of science. It has no impact on physics whatsoever, and I doubt that other philosophers read it because it’s fairly technical. And so it’s really hard to understand what justifies it. And so I’d say that this tension occurs because people in philosophy feel threatened—and they have every right to feel threatened, because science progresses and philosophy doesn’t.”
Later that year Krauss had a friendly discussion with philosopher Julian Baggini in The Observer, an online magazine from The Guardian. Although showing great respect for science and agreeing with Krauss and most other physicists and cosmologists that there isn’t “more stuff in the universe than the stuff of physical science,” Baggini complained that Krauss seems to share “some of science’s imperialist ambitions.” Baggini voices the common opinion that “there are some issues of human existence that just aren’t scientific. I cannot see how mere facts could ever settle the issue of what is morally right or wrong, for example.”

Krauss does not see it quite that way. Rather he distinguishes between “questions that are answerable and those that are not,” and the answerable ones mostly fall into the “domain of empirical knowledge, aka science.” As for moral questions, Krauss claims that they only be answered by “reason…based on empirical evidence.” Baggini cannot see how any “factual discovery could ever settle a question of right and wrong.”

Nevertheless, Krauss expresses sympathy with Baggini’s position, saying, “I do think philosophical discussion can inform decision-making in many important ways—by allowing reflections on facts, but that ultimately the only source of facts is via empirical exploration.”

Noted philosophers were upset with The Atlantic interview, including Daniel Dennett of Tufts University who wrote to Krauss. As a result, Krauss penned a more careful explication of his position that was published in Scientific American in 2014 under the title “The Consolation of Philosophy.” There he was more generous to philosophy’s contribution to the enrichment of his own thinking, although he conceded little of his basic position:

“As a practicing physicist…I, and most of the colleagues with whom I have discussed this matter, have found that philosophical speculations about physics and the nature of science are not particularly useful, and have had little or no impact upon progress in my field. Even in several areas associated with what one can rightfully call the philosophy of science I have found the reflections of physicists to be more useful.”
Krauss is not alone among physicists in his disdain for philosophy. In September 2010 physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow published a shot heard round the world—and not just the academic world. On the first page of their book, The Grand Design, they wrote: “Philosophy is dead” because “philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”

The questions that philosophy is no longer capable of handling (if it ever was) include: How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator? According to Hawking and Mlodinow, only scientists—not philosophers—can provide the answers.

Famous astrophysicist and science popularizer Neil deGrasse Tyson has joined the debate. In an interview on the Nerdist podcast in May 2014 Tyson remarked, “My concern here is that the philosophers believe they are actually asking deep questions about nature. And to the scientist it’s, ‘What are you doing? Why are you concerning yourself with the meaning of meaning?’” His overall message was clear: science moves on; philosophy stays mired, useless and effectively dead.

Needless to say, Tyson also has been heavily criticized for his views. His position can be greatly clarified by viewing the video of his appearance in a forum at Howard University in 2010, where he was on the stage with biologist Richard Dawkins. Tyson’s argument is straightforward and is the same as expressed by Krauss: Philosophers from the time of Plato and Aristotle have claimed that knowledge about the world can be obtained by pure thought alone. As Tyson explained, such knowledge cannot be obtained by someone sitting back in an armchair. It can only be gained by observation and experiment. Richard Feynman had once expressed a similar opinion about “armchair philosophers.” Dawkins agreed with Tyson, pointing out that natural selection was discovered by two naturalists, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, who worked in the field gathering data.

What we are seeing here is not a recent phenomenon. In his 1992 book Dreams of a Final Theory, Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg has a whole chapter entitled “Against Philosophy.” Referring to the famous observation of Nobel laureate physicist Eugene Wigner about “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics,” Weinberg puzzles about “the unreasonable ineffectiveness of philosophy.”

Weinberg does not dismiss all of philosophy, just the philosophy of science, noting that its arcane discussions interest few scientists. He points out the problems with the philosophy of positivism, although he agrees that it played a role in the early development of both relativity and quantum mechanics. He argues that positivism did more harm than good, however, writing, “The positivist concentration on observables like particle positions and momenta has stood in the way of a ‘realist’ interpretation of quantum mechanics, in which the wave function is the representative of physical reality.”

Perhaps the most influential positivist was late 19th-century philosopher and physicist Ernst Mach, who refused to accept the atomic model of matter because he could not see atoms. Today we can see atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope but our models still contain unseen objects such as quarks. Philosophers as well as physicists no longer take positivism seriously, and so it has no remaining influence on physics, good or bad.

Nevertheless, most physicists would agree with Krauss and Tyson that observation is the only reliable source of knowledge about the natural world. Some, but not all, incline toward instrumentalism, in which theories are merely conceptual tools for classifying, systematizing and predicting observational statements. Those conceptual tools may include nonobservable objects such as quarks.

Until very recently in history no distinction was made between physics and natural philosophy. Thales of Miletus (circa 624–546 B.C.) is generally regarded as the first physicist as well as the first philosopher of the Western tradition. He sought natural explanations for phenomena that made no reference to mythology. For example, he explained earthquakes to be the result of Earth resting on water and being rocked by waves. He reasoned this from observation, not pure thought: Land is surrounded by water and boats on water are seen to rock. Although Thales’ explanation for earthquakes was not correct, it was still an improvement over the mythology that they are caused by the god Poseidon striking the ground with his trident.

Thales is famous for predicting an eclipse of the sun that modern astronomers calculate occurred over Asia Minor on May 28, 585 B.C. Most historians today, however, doubt the truth of this tale. Thales’ most significant contribution was to propose that all material substances are composed of a single elementary constituent—namely, water. Whereas he was (not unreasonably) wrong about water being elementary, Thales’ proposal represents the first recorded attempt, at least in the West, to explain the nature of matter without the invocation of invisible spirits.

Thales and other Ionian philosophers who followed espoused a view of reality now called material monism in which everything is matter and nothing else. Today this remains the prevailing view of physicists, who find no need to introduce supernatural elements into their models, which successfully describe all their observations to date.

The rift to which Tyson was referring formed when physics and natural philosophy began to diverge into separate disciplines in the 17th century after Galileo and Newton introduced the principles that describe the motion of bodies. Newton was able to derive from first principles the laws of planetary motion that had been discovered earlier by Kepler. The successful prediction of the return of Halley’s Comet in 1759 demonstrated the great power of the new science for all to see.

The success of Newtonian physics opened up the prospect for a philosophical stance that became known as the clockwork universe, or alternatively, the Newtonian world machine. According to this scheme, the laws of mechanics determine everything that happens in the material world. In particular, there is no place for a god who plays an active role in the universe. As shown by the French mathematician, astronomer and physicist Pierre-Simon Laplace, Newton’s laws were in themselves sufficient to explain the movement of the planets throughout previous history. This led him to propose a radical notion that Newton had rejected: Nothing besides physics is needed to understand the physical universe.

Whereas the clockwork universe has been invalidated by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics remains devilishly hard to interpret philosophically. Rather than say physics “understands” the universe, it is more accurate to say that the models of physics remain sufficient to describe the material world as we observe it to be with our eyes and instruments.

In the early part of the 20th century almost all the famous physicists of the era—Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, among others—considered the philosophical ramifications of their revolutionary discoveries in relativity and quantum mechanics. After World War II, however, the new generation of prominent figures in physics—Richard Feynman, Murray Gell-Mann, Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow and others—found such musings unproductive, and most physicists (there were exceptions in both eras) followed their lead. But the new generation still went ahead and adopted philosophical doctrines, or at least spoke in philosophical terms, without admitting it to themselves.

For example, when Weinberg promotes a “realist” interpretation of quantum mechanics, in which “the wave function is the representative of physical reality,” he is implying that the artifacts theorists include in their models, such as quantum fields, are the ultimate ingredients of reality. In a 2012 Scientific American article theoretical physicist David Tong goes even further than Weinberg in arguing that the particles we actually observe in experiments are illusions and those physicists who say they are fundamental are disingenuous:

Energy & Sustainability: Bigger Cities Aren’t Always Greener, Data Show | Evolution: New Clues about the Evolution of Dogs | Health: Researchers Seek Cancer Clues from Pet Dogs | Mind & Brain: Animals Have More Social Smarts Than You May Think | Space: Sun Accused of Stealing Planetary Objects from Another Star | Technology: Introducing the First Vehicle Powered by Evaporation
“Physicists routinely teach that the building blocks of nature are discrete particles such as the electron or quark. That is a lie. The building blocks of our theories are not particles but fields: continuous, fluidlike objects spread throughout space.”
This view is explicitly philosophical, and accepting it uncritically makes for bad philosophical thinking. Weinberg and Tong, in fact, are expressing a platonic view of reality commonly held by many theoretical physicists and mathematicians. They are taking their equations and model as existing on one-to-one correspondence with the ultimate nature of reality.

In the reputable online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Mark Balaguer defines platonism as follows:

“Platonism is the view that there exist [in ultimate reality] such things as abstract objects—where an abstract object is an object that does not exist in space or time and which is therefore entirely nonphysical and nonmental. Platonism in this sense is a contemporary view. It is obviously related to the views of Plato in important ways but it is not entirely clear that Plato endorsed this view as it is defined here. In order to remain neutral on this question, the term ‘platonism’ is spelled with a lower-case ‘p.’”
We will use platonism with a lower-case “p” here to refer to the belief that the objects within the models of theoretical physics constitute elements of reality, but these models are not based on pure thought, which is Platonism with a capital “P,” but fashioned to describe and predict observations.

Many physicists have uncritically adopted platonic realism as their personal interpretation of the meaning of physics. This not inconsequential because it associates a reality that lies beyond the senses with the cognitive tools humans use to describe observations.

In order to test their models all physicists assume that the elements of these models correspond in some way to reality. But those models are compared with the data that flow from particle detectors on the floors of accelerator labs or at the foci of telescopes (photons are particles, too). It is data—not theory—that decides if a particular model corresponds in some way to reality. If the model fails to fit the data, then it certainly has no connection with reality. If it fits the data, then it likely has some connection. But what is that connection? Models are squiggles on the whiteboards in the theory section of the physics building. Those squiggles are easily erased; the data can’t be.

In his Scientific American article Krauss reveals traces of platonic thinking in his personal philosophy of physics, writing:

“There is a class of philosophers, some theologically inspired, who object to the very fact that scientists might presume to address any version of this fundamental ontological issue. Recently one review of my book [A Universe from Nothing] by such a philosopher…. This author claimed with apparent authority (surprising because the author apparently has some background in physics) something that is simply wrong: that the laws of physics can never dynamically determine which particles and fields exist and whether space itself exists or more generally what the nature of existence might be. But that is precisely what is possible in the context of modern quantum field theory in curved spacetime.”
The direct, platonic, correspondence of physical theories to the nature of reality, as Weinberg, Tong and possibly Krauss have done, is fraught with problems: First, theories are notoriously temporary. We can never know if quantum field theory will not someday be replaced with another more powerful model that makes no mention of fields (or particles, for that matter). Second, as with all physical theories, quantum field theory is a model—a human contrivance. We test our models to find out if they work; but we can never be sure, even for highly predictive models like quantum electrodynamics, to what degree they correspond to “reality.” To claim they do is metaphysics. If there were an empirical way to determine ultimate reality, it would be physics, not metaphysics; but it seems there isn’t.

In the instrumentalist view we have no way of knowing what constitutes the elements of ultimate reality. In that view reality just constrains what we observe; it need not exist in one-to-one correspondence with the mathematical models theorists invent to describe those observations. Furthermore, it doesn’t matter. All these models have to do is describe observations, and they don’t need metaphysics to do that. The explanatory salience of our models may be the core of the romance of science but it plays second chair to its descriptive and predictive capacity. Quantum mechanics is a prime example of this because of its unambiguous usefulness despite lacking an agreed-on philosophical interpretation.

Thus, those who hold to a platonic view of reality are being disingenuous when they disparage philosophy. They are adopting the doctrine of one of the most influential philosophers of all time. That makes them philosophers, too.

Now, not all physicists who criticize philosophers are full-fledged platonists, although many skirt close to it when they talk about the mathematical elements of their models and the laws they invent as if they are built into the structure of the universe. Indeed, the objections of Weinberg, Hawking, Mlodinow, Krauss, and Tyson are better addressed to metaphysics and fail to show sufficient appreciation, in our view, for the vital contributions to human thought that persist in fields like ethics, aesthetics, politics and, perhaps most important, epistemology. Krauss pays these important topics some lip service, but not very enthusiastically.

Of course, Hawking and Mlodinow write mostly with cosmological concerns in mind—and where metaphysical attempts to grapple with the question of ultimate origins trespass on them, they are absolutely correct. Metaphysics and its proto-cosmological speculations, construed as philosophy, were in medieval times considered the handmaiden of theology. Hawking and Mlodinow are saying that metaphysicians who want to deal with cosmological issues are not scientifically savvy enough to contribute usefully. For cosmological purposes, armchair metaphysics is dead, supplanted by the more informed philosophy of physics, and few but theologians would disagree.

Krauss leveled his most scathing criticisms at the philosophy of science, and we suggest that it would have been more constructive had he targeted certain aspects of metaphysics. Andersen, for The Atlantic, interviewed him on whether physics has made philosophy and religion obsolete. And although it hasn’t done so for philosophy, it has for cosmological metaphysics (and the religious claims that depend on it, such as the defunct Kalām cosmological argument begging the necessity of a creator). Surely Krauss had metaphysical attempts to speculate about the universe at least partially in mind, given that the interview addressed his book on cosmology.

Whatever may be the branches of philosophy that deserve the esteem of academics and the public, metaphysics is not among them. The problem is straightforward. Metaphysics professes to be able to hook itself to reality—to legitimately describe reality—but there’s no way to know if it does.

So, although the prominent physicists we have mentioned, and the others who inhabit the same camp, are right to disparage cosmological metaphysics, we feel they are dead wrong if they think they have completely divorced themselves from philosophy. First, as already emphasized, those who promote the reality of the mathematical objects of their models are dabbling in platonic metaphysics whether they know it or not. Second, those who have not adopted platonism outright still apply epistemological thinking in their pronouncements when they assert that observation is our only source of knowledge.

Hawking and Mlodinow clearly reject platonism when they say, “There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality.” Instead, they endorse a philosophical doctrine they call model-dependent realism, which is “the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations.” But they make it clear that “it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observations.”

We are not sure how model-dependent realism differs from instrumentalism. In both cases physicists concern themselves only with observations and, although they do not deny that they are the consequence of some ultimate reality, they do not insist that the models describing those observations correspond exactly to that reality. In any case, Hawking and Mlodinow are acting as philosophers—epistemologists at the minimum—by discussing what we can know about ultimate reality, even if their answer is “nothing.”

All of the prominent critics of philosophy whose views we have discussed think very deeply about the source of human knowledge. That is, they are all epistemologists. The best they can say is they know more about science than (most) professional philosophers and rely on observation and experiment rather than pure thought—not that they aren’t philosophizing. Certainly, then, philosophy is not dead. That designation is more aptly applied to pure-thought variants like those that comprise cosmological metaphysics.

Thanks to Don McGee, Brent Meeker, Chris Savage, Jim Wyman and Bob Zannelli for their helpful comments.

Victor J. Stenger (1935–2014) was emeritus professor of physics at the University of Hawaii and adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado. He is author of The New York Times bestseller, God:The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. His latest book is God and the Multiverse: Humanity’s Expanding View of the Cosmos.

James A. Lindsay has a PhD in mathematics and is author of God Doesn’t; We Do: Only Humans Can Solve Human Challenges and Dot, Dot, Dot: Infinity Plus God Equals Folly.

Peter Boghossian is an assistant professor of philosophy at Portland State University and an affiliate faculty member at Oregon Health & Science University in the Division of General Internal Medicine. He is author of the bestseller, A Manual for Creating Atheists.

By Victor J. Stenger, James A. Lindsay and Peter Boghossian


  1. Woah! I’m really loving the template/theme of this blog.
    It’s simple, yet effective. A lot of times it’s challenging to get
    that “perfect balance” between superb usability and visual appearance.

    I must say you have done a fantastic job with this. Additionally, the blog
    loads very quick for me on Chrome. Exceptional Blog!

  2. Wonderful beat ! I would like to apprentice while you
    amend your web site, how could i subscribe for a weblog website?
    The account helped me a applicable deal. I had been tiny bit familiar of this your broadcast offered brilliant clear concept

  3. Please let me know if you’re looking for a author for your site.

    You have some really good articles and I believe I would be a good asset.
    If you ever want to take some of the load off, I’d absolutely love to write some
    content for your blog in exchange for a link back to mine. Please blast me an e-mail if interested.


  4. Very great post. I simply stumbled upon your weblog and wished to say
    that I’ve truly enjoyed surfing around your blog posts.
    In any case I will be subscribing to your rss feed and I hope
    you write again very soon!

  5. Wonderful goods from you, man. I’ve understand
    your stuff previous to and you are just too great.
    I actually like what you’ve acquired here, certainly
    like what you’re saying and the way in which
    you say it. You make it enjoyable and you still care for to keep it sensible.
    I can’t wait to read far more from you. This is really a
    terrific web site.

  6. Have you ever thought about including a little bit more than just your articles?
    I mean, what you say is valuable and everything. However just imagine if you added some great
    photos or video clips to give your posts more, “pop”!
    Your content is excellent but with images and videos,
    this blog could definitely be one of the greatest
    in its field. Amazing blog!

  7. Additionally, patients can visit the practice’s
    website to access valuable educational tools, to enhance their knowledge
    on various dental procedures and treatments. Officials said that Cortes was to be paid $500 and serve as
    the getaway driver in Hatcher’s robbery. You should search for a dentist with the
    same care you search for a medical doctor; after all your dentist is handling physical ailments that can potentially be life-threatening.

  8. Simply wish to say your article is as amazing. The clarity in your post
    is just nice and i can assume you’re an expert on this subject.
    Well with your permission allow me to grab your RSS feed to keep updated with forthcoming post.

    Thanks a million and please continue the enjoyable work.

  9. I believe what you posted made a great deal of sense.
    But, think about this, suppose you added a little content?
    I am not saying your information is not solid., but suppose you added something that makes people desire more?
    I mean The New Mind Journal | Physicists are philosophers too
    is kinda boring. You should peek at Yahoo’s home page and note how they
    write post titles to grab people to click.

    You might try adding a video or a picture or two to grab readers interested about
    everything’ve written. In my opinion, it could bring your blog a
    little livelier.

  10. Hi there! Quick question that’s entirely off topic.
    Do you know how to make your site mobile friendly? My blog looks weird when browsing from my iphone4.
    I’m trying to find a theme or plugin that
    might be able to fix this issue. If you have any recommendations, please share.

  11. 効果があるとされる便秘改善には、純粋な水を飲むことです。朝起きたらすぐにコップ一杯の冷めたミネラルウォーターを取り入れると、胃腸が刺激されて便秘改善になります。ミネラルウォーターは一日、すくなくても2リットル飲むとよいでしょう。水はお茶やジュースでなくミネラルウォーターを飲みましょう。朝、繊維のある野菜ジュースを飲むのも胃や腸を活動的にします。

  12. I tend not to create a lot of responses, but i did some searching and wound up here The New Mind
    Journal | Physicists are philosophers too. And I do have
    2 questions for you if you do not mind. Could it be just me or does it seem like some of the comments come across as
    if they are coming from brain dead individuals? :
    -P And, if you are posting on other places, I would like to
    follow everything new you have to post. Could you list of all of
    your public sites like your Facebook page, twitter feed, or linkedin profile?

  13. I do believe all the ideas you have offered in your post.
    They’re really convincing and will definitely work.
    Nonetheless, the posts are too short for novices. May you please extend them a little from next time?
    Thank you for the post.

  14. I’m impressed, I have to admit. Rarely do I come across a blog that’s both educative
    and engaging, and let me tell you, you’ve
    hit the nail on the head. The problem is an issue that not enough people are speaking intelligently about.

    I’m very happy I stumbled across this during my search for something relating to this.

  15. I do believe all of the ideas you’ve introduced on your post.

    They are very convincing and will certainly work. Still, the posts
    are very short for newbies. May just you please extend them a little
    from next time? Thanks for the post.

  16. hey there and thank you for your information – I have certainly
    picked up anything new from right here. I did however expertise a few technical points using this website, as
    I experienced to reload the site many times previous to I could get it to
    load correctly. I had been wondering if your hosting is OK?
    Not that I’m complaining, but sluggish loading instances times will often affect your placement in google and could damage your high-quality score if ads and marketing with
    Adwords. Anyway I am adding this RSS to my e-mail and can look out for much more
    of your respective exciting content. Make sure you
    update this again very soon.

  17. Thank you, I’ve just been searching for information about
    this subject for a long time and yours is the greatest I’ve came upon so
    far. However, what concerning the conclusion? Are you positive concerning the supply?

  18. I’m very pleased to discover this web site.
    I wanted to thank you for your time for this fantastic read!!
    I definitely liked every part of it and I have you book marked to see new information on your web site.

  19. An FHA loan lets you get the exact same home with a down payment of
    just $15,750.” The above declaration is incorrect for a couple of reasons.

  20. 手のひらに汗をかいてしまうのは好きな人の前だったり初対面の人と会ったり、気持ちが高ぶっているからですよね。こういうのを精神性発汗というのですが、この汗は努力してどうにかなるものではありません。がんばって汗をかかないようにしよう、アガらないようにしようというのは不可能だからです。汗は文字通り汗腺(かんせん)というところから出ています。この汗腺に物理的に蓋をして汗を出ないようにするというのが掌の汗をコントロールする有効な対策になります。このような作用は、収斂作用といいます。もっともお手軽に手汗を抑える方法として制汗剤を使う方法があります。ファリネという手汗専用の制汗パウダーや、フレナーラという手汗対策用の制汗ジェルクリームなどが人気です。

  21. Condo neighborhood associations generally charge dues and
    membership fees. If you are unable to see the property a second or third time you still have
    ways of ensuring you’re not walking into a lemon. That should be enough
    to give the potential renter a solid idea of whether or not your unit
    is what they’re looking for.

  22. Do you mind if I quote a couple of your articles
    as long as I provide credit and sources back to your blog?

    My website is in the very same niche as yours and my visitors would genuinely benefit from some of the
    information you present here. Please let me know if this
    ok with you. Appreciate it!

  23. Being all alone is often a good way to have a feeling
    of self-reliance and freedom but occasionally it
    could possibly feel a little lonesome in addition to terrifying.

    When you do so, you will be better off financially and
    increasing your credit score gives you a better chance to get a good interest rate when purchasing your first home.
    Whether the property is taken care of by the owner or a property manager, open a conversation about
    how maintenance is handled.

  24. Yahoo Search Marketing provides services such as Sponsored Search, Local Advertising and Product/Travel/Directory Submit that let different businesses advertise their products and services on the Yahoo network.

  25. Chip drei femmestyle Prinzipien – Auf Grund dieser
    aus welcher Geschichte solcher Gesundheitslehre
    hervorgehenden Zusammenhänge bei
    den indischen weiterhin griechischen Kulturen ist
    augenblicklich aufwärts Chip frühen Verbindungen bei
    den indischen Brahmanen nebst Pythagoras
    (570–497/6 v. Chr.) eingegangen worden (▶ Abschn.
    1.3.2). Festzustellen ist, dass es einander benachbart
    in der Klassisches Altertum zur Lebenszeit des Pythagoras
    Indien durchgeführten rekonstruktiven Techniken
    um die operative Erstellung des fehlgebildeten
    kindlichen Ohrläppchens und Chip Wiederherstellung
    zufolge mit Demütigung entstandenem
    Teilverlust jener Bolzen gehandelt Haben soll. Im Zuge dessen
    ist in den Werken welcher anschließend genannten
    Autoren berichtet worden: Zeis (1963), Bishagratna
    (1963), Converse (1977), Porter (2000).
    Bishagratna veröffentlichte 1963 in Indien
    dasjenige Buch Sushruta Samhita durch Deutsche Mark Einleitung
    seitens Dr. N.H. Keswani, „Professor of Anatomy,
    All-India Institute of Medical Sciences New Delhi“.

    Jener Druck erfolgte in der urspünglichen
    indischen im Übrigen in englischer Sprechvermögen. In diesem
    Band Anfang die antiken Theorien und dieses indische
    Episteme welcher Medizin überdies Chip Kontakte
    den namhaften griechischen Philosophen mehr noch
    Ärzten der übereinstimmen Zeitraum beschrieben. Alternative
    Themen sind: „The scope and nature of Sushruta’s
    Surgery“, „Plastic and Rhinoplastic Operations“.

    Dargestellt Herkunft in dieser Reproduktion
    (Kap. XVI) Chip Ätiologie dieser Fettleibigkeit darüber hinaus
    in der Einführung (Introduction, XXX I–XXXVII)
    dieser sogenannte „Sexual Dimorphism, original
    hermaphroditism“. Des Weiteren Herkunft Chip
    Theorien des Werkes vonseiten Sushruta behandelt, die
    noch un… beachtet auch in jener Abfolge auch
    weil absolut nicht
    inklusive unserem medizinischen Wissen verglichen
    worden sind.

  26. So if you want to get more entertainment value from your Nintendo gaming console, all you need to do is to install
    the R4 Gold Upgrade. Unless your software can effectively download videos from a variety
    of different sites, it may not be of much
    use to you. If you think you have a product that has
    the qualities to compete internationally on the music market -.

  27. First off I want to say superb blog! I had a quick question in which I’d like to ask if you don’t mind.
    I was interested to find out how you center yourself and clear your mind
    before writing. I’ve had a tough time clearing my thoughts in getting my
    ideas out there. I truly do take pleasure in writing however it just seems
    like the first 10 to 15 minutes are wasted just trying to figure out how to begin.
    Any ideas or tips? Cheers!

  28. I’ve read several excellent stuff here. Definitely worth bookmarking
    for revisiting. I surprise how much effort you set to create one of
    these magnificent informative website.

  29. The V model offers a strongly structured process similar to the waterfall model, but offers shorter feedback loops.
    The bacteria e-coli are mostly accountable for this. He wrote a book concerning one of the most famous flattop plateaus, or
    tepui’s, where the plants and animals on top had become separated from the
    rest of the world because of eroding land around
    it, and they evolved by themselves over time into indigenous species existing
    nowhere else.

  30. An outstanding share! I’ve just forwarded this onto a co-worker who was conducting a little homework
    on this. And he actually ordered me breakfast because I found it for him…
    lol. So let me reword this…. Thanks for the meal!! But yeah, thanks for spending the time to
    talk about this issue here on your website.

  31. The city also homes a few of the sites that are historic using
    the world and it is also more or one of the oldest downtown centres within the world.

  32. Magnificent goods from you, man. I have keep in mind your stuff previous to and you’re simply extremely great.
    I actually like what you’ve received here, certainly like what you are stating and the best way wherein you assert it.
    You are making it enjoyable and you still take care of to
    keep it smart. I cant wait to learn far more from you. That is really a great web site.

  33. Excellent site you’ve got here.. It’s difficult to find quality
    writing like yours these days. I seriously appreciate individuals like you!

    Take care!!

  34. Great beat ! I would like to apprentice whilst
    you amend your website, how can i subscribe for a weblog site?
    The account aided me a appropriate deal. I had been a little bit acquainted of this your broadcast offered shiny transparent idea

  35. Our company is a provider of business cash advance
    for medium business needs for a long time. Currently,
    due to our experience, we can safely say:
    we know how to verify the company’s solvency without guarantors
    and collateral. It should be emphasized that due to these factors
    a financial institution repays borrowed money and hereat the interest
    rate is raised. In this case the list of needed documents can be less.
    We provide online financing for business. Here you can get a business credit line for
    any type of business. Our managers can help to find the right lending program and answer all your questions: how to get a business loan, how to
    apply for a business loan, how to apply for a small business loan. Therefore do not risk and refer to the pros, and we will find the
    most suitable lending option. All credit unions have different requirements of giving a loan. Previous to giving
    an advance to the debtor, the financial institutions wish to be sure that the credit will
    be paid back. But not just pay back, but subjecting to all conditions – loan terms and interest rate.
    All the details you can review on the 800fund website in USA.

    Phone: 866-386-3006, 866-386-3006

  36. Great goods from you, man. I’ve bear in mind your stuff prior
    to and you’re just too magnificent. I actually like what you have obtained right here, really
    like what you’re saying and the way during which you say it.
    You are making it enjoyable and you still care for to keep it wise.
    I can not wait to learn far more from you. That is actually a terrific web site.

  37. Oh my goodness! Incredible article dude! Thanks, However I am encountering issues with your
    RSS. I don’t know the reason why I am unable
    to join it. Is there anybody else getting identical RSS issues?
    Anyone who knows the answer can you kindly respond?

  38. Fine way of telling, and good piece of writing to get information regarding my presentation
    subject matter, which i am going to present in college.

  39. You are so cool! I do not believe I have read anything like that before.
    So nice to find somebody with original thoughts on this topic.
    Really.. thank you for starting this up. This site is something that
    is needed on the web, someone with a little originality!

  40. Jouant tantôt quelques parties, tantôt une nuit de tournoi, les joueurs de Suisse sont
    devenus une force du monde du jeu de hasard, et l’argent réel de ces jeux coule à flots pour
    des joueurs tels que Claudio Rinaldi, Ronny
    Kaiser, Rino Mathis et Stefan Huber.

  41. It’s a pity you don’t have a donate button! I’d definitely donate to this
    fantastic blog! I suppose for now i’ll settle for book-marking and adding your RSS feed to my
    Google account. I look forward to brand new updates and will talk about this website with my Facebook group.
    Talk soon!

  42. I just like the helpful info you supply to your articles.
    I’ll bookmark your blog and test once more right here
    regularly. I am rather certain I’ll be informed lots of new stuff proper here!
    Good luck for the following!

  43. After scanning this awesome website I just couldn’t
    leave without saying thankyou from your underside of my heart!

  44. Thаt іs a verry good tip partіcularly tօ those neѡ to tɦe blogosphere.
    Brief ƅut vᥱry precise іnformation… Тhank you fοr sharing tһis one.

    A muѕt rеad post!

  45. Abnormal this put up is totaly unrelated to what I was searching google for, but it surely used to be listed at the first page. I suppose your doing one thing proper if Google likes you adequate to place you at the first page of a non similar search.

  46. The Talon HD’s, fully multicoated with XR coatings to maximize light transmission and brightness, deliver
    the finest image detail and color fidelity. Here’s how: Did Bob in accounting let you know about that sweet new show on HBO during lunch, however you know you’ll forget
    after the busy afternoon meetings. From vehicles to space satellites, fuel is used everywhere
    as well as the demand is increasing at brisk pace.

  47. It’s a pity you don’t have a donate button! I’d definitely donate to this superb
    blog! I suppose for now i’ll srttle for book-marking and adding your RSS
    feeed to my Google account. I look forward to new updates and will shyare this blog with my Facebook group.
    Talk soon!

  48. I blog often and I truly appreciate your information.
    Your article has really peaked my interest. I’m going to bookmark your site and keep checking for new details about once per week.

    I subscribed to your RSS feed too.

  49. you’re actually a just right webmaster. The website loading
    pace is incredible. It kind of feels that you’re doing any distinctive trick.
    Moreover, The contents are masterwork. you have performed a excellent task
    on this topic!