See more here:
How to Play Blackjack: Your Ultimate Guide for 2022
Some blackjack tables have a practice of discarding the first card from each new shoe before beginning play. Rules about seeing this card vary from place to place, sometimes even from dealer to dealer.
Some show it to the table automatically, some have to be asked, and (rarely) some casinos have a policy of never showing it to the player.
Card counters would, of course, prefer to see the burn card, but generally dont regard it as a big deal if they cant, as there are usually some quantity of cards behind the cut card that they will never get to see anyway.
This practice actually wasnt designed to deter card counting. It was actually designed to prevent an unethical trick called card steering.
It prevents players (or shady dealers) from marking the top card, or from accidental exposure to players prior to the deal. If the casino wants to burn cards to deter card counting, they would periodically burn several cards in the middle of the shoe to more effectively mess with player counts.
See the article here:
Blackjack – Wikipedia
Blackjack (formerly Black Jack and Vingt-Un) is a casino banking game.[1]:342 It is the most widely played casino banking game in the world. It uses decks of 52 cards and descends from a global family of casino banking games known as Twenty-One. This family of card games also includes the European games Vingt-et-Un and Pontoon, and the Russian game Ochko[ru].[2] Blackjack players do not compete against each other. The game is a comparing card game where each player competes against the dealer.
A Blackjack example, consisting of an Ace and a 10-valued card
Blackjack's immediate precursor was the English version of twenty-one called Vingt-Un, a game of unknown (but likely Spanish) provenance. The first written reference is found in a book by the Spanish author Miguel de Cervantes. Cervantes was a gambler, and the protagonists of his "Rinconete y Cortadillo", from Novelas Ejemplares, are card cheats in Seville. They are proficient at cheating at veintiuna (Spanish for "twenty-one") and state that the object of the game is to reach 21 points without going over and that the ace values 1 or 11. The game is played with the Spanish baraja deck.
"Rinconete y Cortadillo" was written between 1601 and 1602, implying that ventiuna was played in Castile since the beginning of the 17th century or earlier. Later references to this game are found in France and Spain.[3]
The first record of the game in France occurs in 1888 and in Britain during the 1770s and 1780s, but the first rules appeared in Britain in 1800 under the name of Vingt-Un.[6] Twenty-One, still known then as Vingt-Un, appeared in the United States in the early 1800s. The first American rules were an 1825 reprint of the 1800 English rules. English Vingt-Un later developed into an American variant in its own right which was renamed blackjack around 1899.
According to popular myth, when Vingt-Un ("Twenty-One") was introduced into the United States (in the early 1800s, during the First World War, or in the 1930s, depending on the source), gambling houses offered bonus payouts to stimulate players' interest. One such bonus was a ten-to-one payout if the player's hand consisted of the ace of spades and a black jack (either the jack of clubs or the jack of spades). This hand was called a "blackjack", and the name stuck even after the ten-to-one bonus was withdrawn.
French card historian Thierry Depaulis debunks this story, showing that prospectors during the Klondike Gold Rush (189699) gave the name blackjack to the game of American Vingt-Un, the bonus being the usual ace and any 10-point card. Since 'blackjack' also refers to the mineral zincblende, which was often associated with gold or silver deposits, he suggests that the mineral name was transferred by prospectors to the top bonus hand. He could not find any historical evidence for a special bonus for having the combination of an ace with a black jack.
In September 1956, Roger Baldwin, Wilbert Cantey, Herbert Maisel, and James McDermott published a paper titled The Optimum Strategy in Blackjack in the Journal of the American Statistical Association.,[9] the first mathematically sound optimal blackjack strategy. This paper became the foundation of future efforts to beat blackjack. Ed Thorp used Baldwin's hand calculations to verify the basic strategy and later published (in 1963) Beat the Dealer.[10]
At a blackjack table, the dealer faces five to nine playing positions from behind a semicircular table. Between one and eight standard 52-card decks are shuffled together. To start each round, players place bets in the "betting box" at each position. In jurisdictions allowing back betting, up to three players can be at each position. The player whose bet is at the front of the betting box controls the position, and the dealer consults the controlling player for playing decisions; the other bettors "play behind". A player can usually control or bet in as many boxes as desired at a single table, but an individual cannot play on more than one table at a time or place multiple bets within a single box. In many U.S. casinos, players are limited to playing one to three positions at a table.
The dealer deals from their left ("first base") to their far right ("third base"). Each box gets an initial hand of two cards visible to the people playing on it. The dealer's hand gets its first card face-up and, in "hole card" games, immediately gets a second card face-down (the hole card), which the dealer peeks at but only reveals when it makes the dealer's hand a blackjack. Hole card games are sometimes played on tables with a small mirror or electronic sensor used to peek securely at the hole card. In European casinos, "no hole card" games are prevalent; the dealer's second card is not drawn until the players have played their hands.
Dealers deal the cards from one or two handheld decks, from a dealer's shoe or from a shuffling machine. Single cards are dealt to each wagered-on position clockwise from the dealer's left, followed by a single card to the dealer, followed by an additional card to each of the positions in play. The players' initial cards may be dealt face-up or face-down (more common in single-deck games).
The object of the game is to win money by creating card totals higher than those of the dealer's hand but not exceeding 21, or by stopping at a total in the hope that the dealer will bust. On their turn, players choose to "hit" (take a card), "stand" (end their turn and stop without taking a card), "double" (double their wager, take a single card, and finish), "split" (if the two cards have the same value, separate them to make two hands), or "surrender" (give up a half-bet and retire from the game).
Number cards count as their number, the jack, queen, and king ("face cards" or "pictures") count as 10, and aces count as either 1 or 11 according to the player's choice. If the total exceeds 21 points, it busts, and all bets on it immediately lose.
After the boxes have finished playing, the dealer's hand is resolved by drawing cards until the hand achieves a total of 17 or higher (a dealer total of 17 including an ace valued at 11, also known as a "soft 17", must be drawn to in some games and must stand in others). The dealer never doubles, splits, or surrenders. If the dealer busts, all remaining player hands win. If the dealer does not bust, each remaining bet wins if its hand is higher than the dealer's and loses if it is lower.
A player total of 21 on the first two cards is a "natural" or "blackjack", and the player wins immediately unless the dealer also has one, in which case the hand ties. In the case of a tie ("push" or "standoff"), bets are returned without adjustment. A blackjack beats any hand that is not a blackjack, even one with a value of 21.
Wins are paid out at even money, except for player blackjacks, which are traditionally paid out at 3 to 2 odds. Many casinos today pay blackjacks at less than 3:2. This is common in single-deck blackjack games.[11]
Blackjack games usually offer a side bet called insurance, which may be placed when the dealer's face-up card is an ace. Additional side bets, such as "Dealer Match" which pays when the player's cards match the dealer's up card, are also sometimes available.
After the initial two cards, the player has up to five options: "hit", "stand", "double down", "split", or "surrender". Each option has a corresponding hand signal.
Hand signals help the "eye in the sky" make a video recording of the table, which resolves disputes and identifies dealer mistakes. It is also used to protect the casino against dealers who steal chips or players who cheat. Recordings can also identify advantage players. When a player's hand signal disagrees with their words, the hand signal takes precedence.
A hand can "hit" as often as desired until the total is 21 or more. Players must stand on a total of 21. After a bust or a stand, play proceeds to the next hand clockwise around the table. After the last hand is played, the dealer reveals the hole card and stands or draws according to the game's rules. When the outcome of the dealer's hand is established, any hands with bets remaining on the table are resolved (usually in counterclockwise order); bets on losing hands are forfeited, the bet on a push is left on the table, and winners are paid out.
If the dealer shows an ace, an "insurance" bet is allowed. Insurance is a side bet that the dealer has a blackjack. The dealer asks for insurance bets before the first player plays. Insurance bets of up to half the player's current bet are placed on the "insurance bar" above the player's cards. If the dealer has a blackjack, insurance pays 2 to 1. In most casinos, the dealer looks at the down card and pays off or takes the insurance bet immediately. In other casinos, the payoff waits until the end of the play.
In face-down games, if a player has more than one hand, they can look at all their hands before deciding. This is the only condition where a player can look at multiple hands.
Players with blackjack can also take insurance.
Insurance bets lose money in the long run. The dealer has a blackjack less than one-third of the time. In some games, players can also take insurance when a 10-valued card shows, but the dealer has an ace in the hole less than one-tenth of the time.
The insurance bet is susceptible to advantage play. It is advantageous to make an insurance bet whenever the hole card has more than a one in three chance of being a ten. Card counting techniques can identify such situations.
Note: where changes in the house edge due to changes in the rules are stated in percentage terms, the difference is usually stated here in percentage points, not a percentage. For example, if an edge of 10% is reduced to 9%, it is reduced by one percentage point, not reduced by ten percent.
Blackjack rules are generally set by regulations that establish permissible rule variations at the casino's discretion.[13] Blackjack comes with a "house edge"; the casino's statistical advantage is built into the game. Most of the house's edge comes from the fact that the player loses when both the player and dealer bust. Blackjack players using basic strategy lose on average less than 1% of their action over the long run, giving blackjack one of the lowest edges in the casino. The house edge for games where blackjack pays 6 to 5 instead of 3 to 2 increases by about 1.4%, though. Player deviations from basic strategy also increase the house edge.
Each game has a rule about whether the dealer must hit or stand on soft 17, which is generally printed on the table surface. The variation where the dealer must hit soft 17 is abbreviated "H17" in blackjack literature, with "S17" used for the stand-on-soft-17 variation. Substituting an "H17" rule with an "S17" rule in a game benefits the player, decreasing the house edge by about 0.2%.
All things being equal, using fewer decks decreases the house edge. This mainly reflects an increased likelihood of player blackjack, since if the player draws a ten on their first card, the subsequent probability of drawing an ace is higher with fewer decks. It also reflects the decreased likelihood of a blackjackblackjack push in a game with fewer decks.
Casinos generally compensate by tightening other rules in games with fewer decks, to preserve the house edge or discourage play altogether. When offering single-deck blackjack games, casinos are more likely to disallow doubling on soft hands or after splitting, restrict resplitting, require higher minimum bets, and to pay the player less than 3:2 for a winning blackjack.
The following table illustrates the mathematical effect on the house edge of the number of decks, by considering games with various deck counts under the following ruleset: double after split allowed, resplit to four hands allowed, no hitting split aces, no surrendering, double on any two cards, original bets only lost on dealer blackjack, dealer hits soft 17, and cut-card used. The increase in house edge per unit increase in the number of decks is most dramatic when comparing the single-deck game to the two-deck game, and becomes progressively smaller as more decks are added.
Surrender, for those games that allow it, is usually not permitted against a dealer blackjack; if the dealer's first card is an ace or ten, the hole card is checked to make sure there is no blackjack before surrender is offered. This rule protocol is consequently known as "late" surrender. The alternative, "early" surrender, gives the player the option to surrender before the dealer checks for blackjack, or in a no hole card game. Early surrender is much more favorable to the player than late surrender.
For late surrender, however, while it is tempting to opt for surrender on any hand which will probably lose, the correct strategy is to only surrender on the very worst hands, because having even a one-in-four chance of winning the full bet is better than losing half the bet and pushing the other half, as entailed by surrendering.
If the cards of a post-split hand have the same value, most games allow the player to split again, or "resplit". The player places a further wager, and the dealer separates the new pair dealing a further card to each as before. Some games allow unlimited resplitting, while others may limit it to a certain number of hands, such as four hands (for example, "resplit to 4").
After splitting aces, the common rule is that only one card will be dealt to each ace; the player cannot split, double, or take another hit on either hand. Rule variants include allowing resplitting aces or allowing the player to hit split aces. Games allowing aces to be resplit are not uncommon, but those allowing the player to hit split aces are extremely rare. Allowing the player to hit hands resulting from split aces reduces the house edge by about 0.13%; allowing resplitting of aces reduces the house edge by about 0.03%. Note that a ten-value card dealt on a split ace (or vice versa) will not be counted as a blackjack but as a soft 21.
After a split, most games allow doubling down on the new two-card hands. Disallowing doubling after a split increases the house edge by about 0.12%.
Under the "Reno rule", doubling down is only permitted on hard totals of 9, 10, or 11 (under a similar European rule, only 10 or 11). The basic strategy would otherwise call for some doubling down with hard 9 and soft 1318, and advanced players can identify situations where doubling on soft 1920 and hard 8, 7, and even 6 is advantageous. The Reno rule prevents the player from taking advantage of double down in these situations and thereby increases the player's expected loss. The Reno rule increases the house edge by around 1 in 1,000, and its European version by around 1 in 500.
In most non-U.S. casinos, a "no hole card" game is played, meaning that the dealer does not draw nor consult their second card until after all players have finished making decisions. With no hole card, it is rarely the correct basic strategy to double or split against a dealer ten or ace, since a dealer blackjack will result in the loss of the split and double bets; the only exception is with a pair of aces against a dealer 10, where it is still correct to split. In all other cases, a stand, hit, or surrender is called for. For instance, when holding 11 against a dealer 10, the correct strategy is to double in a hole card game (where the player knows the dealer's second card is not an ace), but to hit in a no-hole card game. The no-hole-card rule adds approximately 0.11% to the house edge.
The "original bets only" rule variation appearing in certain no hole card games states that if the player's hand loses to a dealer blackjack, only the mandatory initial bet ("original") is forfeited, and all optional bets, meaning doubles and splits, are pushed. "Original bets only" is also known by the acronym OBO; it has the same effect on basic strategy and the house edge as reverting to a hole card game.[14]
In many casinos, a blackjack pays only 6:5 or even 1:1 instead of the usual 3:2. This is most common at tables with lower table minimums. Although this payoff was originally limited to single-deck games, it has spread to double-deck and shoe games. Among common rule variations in the U.S., these altered payouts for blackjack are the most damaging to the player, causing the greatest increase in house edge. Since blackjack occurs in approximately 4.8% of hands, the 1:1 game increases the house edge by 2.3%, while the 6:5 game adds 1.4% to the house edge. Video blackjack machines generally pay a 1:1 payout for a blackjack.[11]
The rule that bets on tied hands are lost rather than pushed is catastrophic to the player. Though rarely used in standard blackjack, it is sometimes seen in "blackjack-like" games, such as in some charity casinos.
Each blackjack game has a basic strategy, the optimal method of playing any hand. When using basic strategy, the long-term house advantage (the expected loss of the player) is minimized.
An example of a basic strategy is shown in the table below, which applies to a game with the following specifications:[15]
Key:
Most basic strategy decisions are the same for all blackjack games. Rule variations call for changes in only a few situations. For example, to use the table above on a game with the stand-on-soft-17 rule (which favors the player, and is typically found only at higher-limit tables today) only 6 cells would need to be changed: hit on 11 vs. A, hit on 15 vs. A, stand on 17 vs. A, stand on A,7 vs. 2, stand on A,8 vs. 6, and split on 8,8 vs. A. Regardless of the specific rule variations, taking insurance or "even money" is never the correct play under a basic strategy.[15]
Estimates of the house edge for blackjack games quoted by casinos and gaming regulators are based on the assumption that the players follow basic strategy.
Most blackjack games have a house edge of between 0.5% and 1%, placing blackjack among the cheapest casino table games for the player. Casino promotions such as complimentary matchplay vouchers or 2:1 blackjack payouts allow players to acquire an advantage without deviating from basic strategy.[16]
The basic strategy is based on a player's point total and the dealer's visible card. Players can sometimes improve on this decision by considering the composition of their hand, not just the point total. For example, players should ordinarily stand when holding 12 against a dealer 4. But in a single deck game, players should hit if their 12 consists of a 10 and a 2. The presence of a 10 in the player's hand has two consequences:[17]
Even when basic and composition-dependent strategies lead to different actions, the difference in expected reward is small, and it becomes smaller with more decks. Using a composition-dependent strategy rather than a basic strategy in a single-deck game reduces the house edge by 4 in 10,000, which falls to 3 in 100,000 for a six-deck game.[18]
Blackjack has been a high-profile target for advantage players since the 1960s. Advantage play attempts to win more using skills such as memory, computation, and observation. While these techniques are legal, they can give players a mathematical edge in the game, taking advantage of players' unwanted customers for casinos. Advantage play can lead to ejection or blacklisting. Some advantageous play techniques in blackjack include:
During the course of a blackjack shoe, the dealer exposes the dealt cards. Players can infer from their accounting of the exposed cards which cards remain. These inferences can be used in the following ways:
A card counting system assigns a point score to each card rank (e.g., 1 point for 26, 0 points for 79, and 1 point for 10A). When a card is exposed, a counter adds the score of that card to a running total, the 'count'. A card counter uses this count to make betting and playing decisions. The count starts at 0 for a freshly shuffled deck for "balanced" counting systems. Unbalanced counts are often started at a value that depends on the number of decks used in the game.
Blackjack's house edge is usually around 0.51% when players use basic strategy.[19] Card counting can give the player a house edge of up to 2%.[20]:5
Card counting works best when a few cards remain. This makes single-deck games better for counters. As a result, casinos are more likely to insist that players do not reveal their cards to one another in single-deck games. In games with more decks, casinos limit penetration by ending the shoe and reshuffling when one or more decks remain undealt. Casinos also sometimes use a shuffling machine to reintroduce the cards whenever a deck has been played.
Card counting is legal unless the counter is using an external device,[20]:67 but a casino might inform counters that they are no longer welcome to play blackjack. Sometimes a casino might ban a card counter from the property.[21]
The use of external devices to help count cards is illegal throughout the United States.[22]
Another advantage play technique, mainly applicable in multi-deck games, involves tracking groups of cards (also known as slugs, clumps, or packs) through the shuffle and then playing and betting according to when those cards come into play from a new shoe. Shuffle tracking requires excellent eyesight and powers of visual estimation but is harder to detect; shuffle trackers' actions are largely unrelated to the composition of the cards in the shoe.[23]
Arnold Snyder's articles in Blackjack Forum magazine brought shuffle tracking to the general public. His book, The Shuffle Tracker's Cookbook, mathematically analyzed the player edge available from shuffle tracking based on the actual size of the tracked slug. Jerry L. Patterson also developed and published a shuffle-tracking method for tracking favorable clumps of cards and cutting them into play and tracking unfavorable clumps of cards and cutting them out of play.[24][25][26]
The player can also gain an advantage by identifying cards from distinctive wear markings on their backs, or by hole carding (observing during the dealing process the front of a card dealt face-down). These methods are generally legal although their status in particular jurisdictions may vary.[27]
Many blackjack tables offer side bets on various outcomes including:[28]
The side wager is typically placed in a designated area next to the box for the main wager. A player wishing to wager on a side bet usually must place a wager on blackjack. Some games require that the blackjack wager should equal or exceed any side bet wager. A non-controlling player of a blackjack hand is usually permitted to place a side bet regardless of whether the controlling player does so.
The house edge for side bets is generally higher than for the blackjack game itself.[29] Nonetheless, side bets can be susceptible to card counting. A side count designed specifically for a particular side bet can improve the player's edge. Only a few side bets, like "Insurance" and "Lucky Ladies", offer a sufficient win rate to justify the effort of advantage play.
In team play, it is common for team members to be dedicated to only counting a side bet using a specialized count.
Blackjack can be played in tournament form. Players start with an equal number of chips; the goal is to finish among the top chip holders. Depending on the number of competitors, tournaments may be held over several rounds, with one or two players qualifying from each table after a set number of deals to meet the qualifiers from the other tables in the next round. Another tournament format, Elimination Blackjack, drops the lowest-stacked player from the table at pre-determined points in the tournament. A good strategy for blackjack tournaments can differ from a non-tournament strategy because of the added dimension of choosing the amount to be wagered. As in poker tournaments, players pay the casino an initial entry fee to participate in a tournament, and re-buys are sometimes permitted.
Some casinos, as well as general betting outlets, provide blackjack among a selection of casino-style games at electronic consoles. Video blackjack game rules are generally more favorable to the house; e.g., paying out only even money for winning blackjacks. Video and online blackjack games generally deal each round from a fresh shoe (i.e., use an RNG for each deal), rendering card counting ineffective in most situations.[30]
Blackjack is a member of the family of traditional card games played recreationally worldwide. Most of these games have not been adapted for casino play. Furthermore, the casino game development industry actively produces blackjack variants, most of which are ultimately not adopted by casinos. The following are the most prominent and established variants in casinos.
Examples of local traditional and recreational related games include French Vingt-et-un ("Twenty-One") and German Siebzehn und Vier ("Seventeen and Four"). Neither game allows splitting. An ace counts only eleven, but two aces count as a blackjack. It is mostly played in private circles and barracks. The popular British member of the Vingt-Un family is called Pontoon, the name being probably a corruption of "Vingt-et-un".
In 2002, professional gamblers worldwide were invited to nominate great blackjack players for admission into the Blackjack Hall of Fame. Seven members were inducted in 2002, with new people inducted every year after. The Hall of Fame is at the Barona Casino in San Diego. Members include Edward O. Thorp, author of the 1960s book Beat the Dealer; Ken Uston, who popularized the concept of team play; Arnold Snyder, author and editor of the Blackjack Forum trade journal; and Stanford Wong, author and popularizer of "Wonging".
Read more from the original source:
Online Free Blackjack | Instantly Play Blackjack for Free
Free Blackjack Game Overview
Welcome to this online blackjack page where you can play the best free blackjack games. The benefits of playing online are that you can learn blackjack rules in no rush and there is no actual monetary loss if you lose! You can click the menu button on the top right corner to read the rules. What's best: We also automatically save your game so you can come back anytime to play blackjack online! Remember, you don't win because you are closer to the value of 21 -- you win because your combined value of the cards is greater than that of dealer.
1. When the value of dealer's revealed card is 4,5 or 6, it may be fruitful to double your bet with an Ace and 4 in hand.
2. You may want to surrender if you have 16 in your hand while the dealer has a 9,10 or A.
3. You should always split if you have a pair of Aces.
4. If you get a pair of 7s, only press hit if the dealer has 8,9,10 or Ace.
Play Blackjack for free now to test whether the strategy works!
Read the rest here:
Blackjack Online for Real Money Play with $3000 Bonus
If youre interested in playing blackjack online real money, there are many options to choose from. With so many options to choose from, it may be slightly difficult to figure out which site is the best suited for your needs. Below are some of the best sites available to play blackjack online. Online sports betting sites to wager over internet.
One of the leading websites for online blackjack real money games is Jackpot City. It is considered to be one of the very top tier, premier sources for online slots real money and other gaming. They offer some of the very best bonuses in the entire realm of internet casinos. You can play blackjack online as much as you want at Jackpot City, all from the comfort of your own home. In addition to offering stellar bonuses, Jackpot City is one of the most dependable internet casinos, offering a considerable amount of customer service that is available 24 hours a day.
Casinodotcom is one of the most longstanding and dependable places to play online blackjack games on the entire internet. The promotions and bonuses offered by this website offer an unbeatable combination of a name brand and a chance to win big. You dont have to worry about coming up with the money to travel to Vegas when you play games on casino.com, you can just continue to play to your hearts content from your very own home. If youre on the lookout for an online blackjack website there are few better options than casino.com for the very best blackjack playing experience.
888 is a world-class spot to play blackjack online. Online blackjack games can be difficult to find from a reliable and proven name. 888 is one of the most dependable online casinos in existence, one that boasts some of the most bonus giveaways, promotions, and events in existence. With the wide variety of games that 888 provides, you can experience the thrill of Las Vegas gambling right from your very home. You can play to your hearts content and never run out of fun once you get going at 888.
If youre interested in online blackjack games, you can look no further than Party Casino. If youre looking to play blackjack online real money, this is one of your very best options. They offer a wide variety of instant win titles including keno, hi-lo and virtual scratch cards in addition to having a fantastic blackjack experience. If you ever need help with the website they also have a dedicated customer support line that is open and operational 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. If youre looking to get in the game, you can do no better than Party Casino.
Mr. Green is one of the leaders in the online blackjack real money scene. They offer fantastic promotions, quick withdrawals of cash and a dedicated support team that is available 24 hours a day. With their promotions and their dedication to their user base, it makes Mr. Green one of the clearcut winners for places to play blackjack online.
Follow this link:
Play Online Blackjack Real Money – Top 3 Casinos in 2023
There are tons of Blackjack games you can play online these days. Many blackjack sites allow players to play for free or for real money. With all these gaming sites online, its easy to become confused about choosing the right online blackjack game. And of course, these sites claim to be one of the best blackjack online games in the market.
However, many of these sites have been tested and proven to be among the best. Five of the best online blackjack games out there are as follows:
1. Bovada established in December 2011, welcome bonuses are up to $3,000. Real-time gaming software is also used to play blackjack online. You can play live with real players, real tables, a live dealer, real dealers, and more.
Yahoo! Sports and Fox Sports featured this casino. Also, Bovada is distinctive from many other blackjack sites due to them having a strong presence in social media.
2. SlotsLV Casino this casino has high ratings due to this casino having an extensive array of games, quick payout speeds, the best software from different providers, and a huge welcome bonus. SlotsLV also allow about 12 banking options and have top-notch security.
3. Casino Classic this is one of the best sites to use to play blackjack online especially when using a mobile device. Other distinctions about this site include no deposit requirement, and they offer the 500 free for an hour.
4. CoolCat Casino established in 2002, this casino is licensed in Costa Rica and owned by the Virtual Casino Group. This brands interface comes with digital sound and 3D-rendered graphics. Other spectacular aspects of this casino are as follows:
5. Las Vegas USA Casino this business started in 1999. This casino has classic gaming, mobile services, modern adaptation, mobile services, versatile promotions, and a plethora of welcome bonuses.
The best brands use a variety of options when it comes to payment methods. Bitcoin, debit cards, credit cards, PayPal, Skrill, eWallets, Paysafe Card, Ukash, Neteller, and UK players are many of the acceptable payment methods.
More details of the popular payment methods are as follows:
A plethora of amazing offers is provided when you play blackjack online. These provisions are as follows:
You wont be disappointed when you play blackjack online with these companies. Youll have tons of choices with these online blackjack games. You can also fully enjoy these games without having to worry about cybercriminal activities. These brands installed top-notch SSL encryption that safeguards the players financial and personal data.
Read more from the original source:
BlackJack – Free Online Game | Washington Post
Free Blackjack Game Overview
Welcome to this online blackjack page where you can play the best free blackjack games. The benefits of playing online are that you can learn blackjack rules in no rush and there is no actual monetary loss if you lose! You can click the menu button on the top right corner to read the rules. What's best: We also automatically save your game so you can come back anytime to play blackjack online! Remember, you don't win because you are closer to the value of 21 -- you win because your combined value of the cards is greater than that of dealer.
1. When the value of dealer's revealed card is 4,5 or 6, it may be fruitful to double your bet with an Ace and 4 in hand.
2. You may want to surrender if you have 16 in your hand while the dealer has a 9,10 or A.
3. You should always split if you have a pair of Aces.
4. If you get a pair of 7s, only press hit if the dealer has 8,9,10 or Ace.
Play Blackjack for free now to test whether the strategy works!
See the rest here:
5 Best Online Blackjack Casinos to Play for Real Money
Online blackjack is a fast and relatively simple casino game to learn, but difficult to master. Whether you choose to play it at a Las Vegas casino or the virtual tables online, blackjack is an extremely popular and adaptive game. The game continues to evolve with each passing day mostly because of the attention it gets from players.
Benefits of Cafe Casino
Benefits of Ignition Casino
Benefits of Slots.lv Casino
But this game isnt as simple and straightforward to all players. To some its shrouded in mystery. If you are such a player, then you are in the right place. Continue reading and learn how to:
Ranking and rating real money blackjack casinos is not a one step process. It is not as simple as looking at the welcome bonus, banking options, games and other features before coming up with a conclusion. The approach that we take here at Max Casinos USA is much more involving.
While we look at aspects such as licensing, banking options, and welcome bonus, we also tend to look at features such as the reputation of the brand and security measures put in place. Our top priority is knowing that our readers are safe at all times while playing blackjack online.
After thorough testing, we then proceed to recommend blackjack sites. As you read through this page, these are the sites that we found to satisfy our criteria of ranking blackjack sites.
Ignition Casino
Ignition Online Casino has been operational since 2016. The brand is under the ownership of Lynton Limited, who are also the operators of other renowned brands such as Slots.lv, and Caf Casino. Ignition brings something extraordinary to the industry.
They have the largest active and all round poker platform, focused mostly on entertaining the US player base. They also offer a nice suit of games from the reputable Rival Gaming. It is one of the few sites to hold a license from the well respected licensing body of the Government of Curacao, making it a legitimate site too.
Why players love Ignition Casino?
Casino rating
Cafe Casino
Although Caf Casino has technically only been active since 2016, their roots under different names go back to the early 2000s. Weve also been active members at the site since their launch, which is why weve decided to prepare this expansive review on the brand.
By the time you are done reading this Caf Casino review, youll have known why their tournaments are one of the best; why you can depend on their customer support team and why you should be part of the Cafe Casino's Perks promo.
Why players love Caf Casino?
Casino rating
El Royale
El Royale online casinos is without doubt one of the leading operators in the newly regulated USA online casino industry. Since its launch in 2020, the El Royale brand has aimed at replicating the success of its competitors, combining the best of land based casino gaming and a leading technological website.
This is why they offer themed promotions from time to time, a cutting edge mobile gaming platform, a number of entertaining games among many other features. Read our El Royale Casino review and find out what awaits you when you sign up at the casino.
Why players love El Royale?
Casino rating
Slots.lv
Slots.lv online casino is underrated in a lot of aspects, with their payouts behind Exhibit A. Practically; they are the best when it comes to processing payments fast, especially with Bitcoin transactions. Make a Bitcoin withdrawal and you will have it deposited into your wallet in under an hour. This is especially true if you make a small Bitcoin withdrawal request.
The best part about it is that you wont have to provide any form of identification or talk to an agent. The caveat is that you have to be outside of the states of Nevada, NJ and Delaware to enjoy these services.
Why players love Slots.lv?
Casino rating
Big Spin Casino
Big Spin online casino aims at doing everything bigger and better than its immediate online casino competitors. Whether it is their fresh promotions and bonuses or the burgeoning games portfolio, the site that was only launched in 2017 and licensed by the reputable Government of Curacao takes everything to the next level.
Ready to find out how far Big Spin is willing to go to ensure you have a good time? This Big Spin Casino review has all the details.
Why players love Ignition Casino?
Casino rating
The advantage of playing real money blackjack online is that there are a variety of games to pick from. Most of these games are easy to play, but they can easily be as complicated. This is especially true if you dont speak or understand the language used at the table. To help you overcome this, weve prepared a list of some of the commonly used real money blackjack terms.
Action
Also referred to as Play. Refers to the action of spinning the reels
Anchor
Also referred to as Third Base. This is the position nearest the dealers right hand side. Its usually the last position to be played after one round
Ante
A feature commonly featured in video slots. It lets you re-spin the reels automatically for a given number of times
Blackjack
Blackjack is a popular card game played at the online casino. Its also a term used to refer to a hand in blackjack with an Ace and a 10 value card. This gives you a hand value of 21 after the first deal
Bust
When you bust while playing real money blackjack, your hand has scored over 21
Button
Anyone holding the button is the last to be dealt with cards at the table. The term is commonly used in live dealer blackjack games
Card Counting
One of the most misunderstood strategies in blackjack. As a blackjack strategy, it is used to keep track of cards dealt at the table
Capping A Bet
This simply means adding chips to your bet once the dealer has started dealing
Carte
French word that you use to request for another card from the dealer
Cut
This is a division of the blackjack deck with the bottom section put at the top, after a shuffle
Double Down
This is one of the plays at the blackjack table. When you double down, you double the original bet and receive an extra card
Even Money
If the dealers hole card results into a blackjack (insurance bet), you get a payout of 1:1 (even money payout)
First Base
This is the opposite of the Anchor. Refers to the player sitting at the dealers left hand side and is the first one to receive cards
Face Cards
These are the Jack, King and Queen cards. They are all usually valued at 10
Fold
This is also one the plays you make at the blackjack table. When you fold, you are simply giving up your cards because you have a poor hand
Hard Hand
When you have a hard hand, you simply dont have an Ace. If the Ace is present, you are playing it as 1 instead of 11
Heads Up
A game of live dealer blackjack where theres only one player and the dealer
Hit
When you Hit, you are simply requesting to be dealt another card
Hole Card
This refers to the dealers face down card
Insurance Bet
This is a type of bet you place at the table. You are simply wagering that if the dealers hole card is an Ace, the resulting hand will be a blackjack.
Pat
A blackjack hand thats valued at 17 points and you cannot take any more cards
Penetration
Refers to the minimum number of cards that have to dealt out from the shoe before reshuffling is done
Push
A push in blackjack is simply a tie. Its a situation where the player and the houses hands are equal in value
Shoe
This is the show holding all the undealt cards at the live dealer table
Soft Hand
Opposite of a hard hand. When your hand has an Ace valued at 11, it results into a soft hand
Split
When you are dealt a hand with two similar cards, you can split it so that you have two new hands
Stand
If you are satisfied with the selection of your hand, you can choose not to take any more cards. In blackjack, this is referred to as standing
Stiff Hand
A stiff hand is one thats valued between 12 and 16.
Surrender
When you surrender, it simply means that youve folded because of a bad hand. The result is you are reimbursed half your cash
Up card
The Up Card is the dealers card thats visible
Blackjack is a popular online casino game based on the card game Twenty-one, or Vingt-et-Un. Vingt-et-Un was originally played in France in the 17th century. This is why France is considered as the cradle of blackjack. Vingt-et-Un was finally introduced by immigrants to the United States, where it was secretly played in backstreet establishments.
However, it was only after legalization of Las Vegas casinos in 1931 when the game saw a growth in popularity. During this era, Las Vegas casinos started offering special odds to attract would-be players on Vingt-et-Un.
The special odds on Twenty-one ensured players received a 10:1 (ten-to-one) payout. To receive the payout, one had to get an Ace of Spades and either the Jack of Spades or Jack of Clubs. The special combination of odds gave birth to the term Blackjack.
Though the brick and mortar casinos phased out the special odds the name stuck and thats how modern day blackjack was born.
Over the years, real money blackjack has become a popular game among players due to its low house edge. It has been estimated that the casinos chances of winning (house edge) are slightly 1% higher than the players.
Blackjack has evolved over the years and as we write this real money blackjack guide, there are several versions of the game. Some of the games you can play include Vegas Strip, Blackjack Switch, Progressive Blackjack, Pontoon and many more. While they use the same blackjack rules for gameplay, they have subtle differences that set them apart from each other.
See original here:
Rationalism | Definition, Types, History, Examples, & Descartes
rationalism, in Western philosophy, the view that regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge. Holding that reality itself has an inherently logical structure, the rationalist asserts that a class of truths exists that the intellect can grasp directly. There are, according to the rationalists, certain rational principlesespecially in logic and mathematics, and even in ethics and metaphysicsthat are so fundamental that to deny them is to fall into contradiction. The rationalists confidence in reason and proof tends, therefore, to detract from their respect for other ways of knowing.
Rationalism has long been the rival of empiricism, the doctrine that all knowledge comes from, and must be tested by, sense experience. As against this doctrine, rationalism holds reason to be a faculty that can lay hold of truths beyond the reach of sense perception, both in certainty and generality. In stressing the existence of a natural light, rationalism has also been the rival of systems claiming esoteric knowledge, whether from mystical experience, revelation, or intuition, and has been opposed to various irrationalisms that tend to stress the biological, the emotional or volitional, the unconscious, or the existential at the expense of the rational.
Rationalism has somewhat different meanings in different fields, depending upon the kind of theory to which it is opposed.
In the psychology of perception, for example, rationalism is in a sense opposed to the genetic psychology of the Swiss scholar Jean Piaget (18961980), who, exploring the development of thought and behaviour in the infant, argued that the categories of the mind develop only through the infants experience in concourse with the world. Similarly, rationalism is opposed to transactionalism, a point of view in psychology according to which human perceptual skills are achievements, accomplished through actions performed in response to an active environment. On this view, the experimental claim is made that perception is conditioned by probability judgments formed on the basis of earlier actions performed in similar situations. As a corrective to these sweeping claims, the rationalist defends a nativism, which holds that certain perceptual and conceptual capacities are innateas suggested in the case of depth perception by experiments with the visual cliff, which, though platformed over with firm glass, the infant perceives as hazardousthough these native capacities may at times lie dormant until the appropriate conditions for their emergence arise.
In the comparative study of languages, a similar nativism was developed beginning in the 1950s by the linguistic theorist Noam Chomsky, who, acknowledging a debt to Ren Descartes (15961650), explicitly accepted the rationalistic doctrine of innate ideas. Though the thousands of languages spoken in the world differ greatly in sounds and symbols, they sufficiently resemble each other in syntax to suggest that there is a schema of universal grammar determined by innate presettings in the human mind itself. These presettings, which have their basis in the brain, set the pattern for all experience, fix the rules for the formation of meaningful sentences, and explain why languages are readily translatable into one another. It should be added that what rationalists have held about innate ideas is not that some ideas are full-fledged at birth but only that the grasp of certain connections and self-evident principles, when it comes, is due to inborn powers of insight rather than to learning by experience.
Common to all forms of speculative rationalism is the belief that the world is a rationally ordered whole, the parts of which are linked by logical necessity and the structure of which is therefore intelligible. Thus, in metaphysics it is opposed to the view that reality is a disjointed aggregate of incoherent bits and is thus opaque to reason. In particular, it is opposed to the logical atomisms of such thinkers as David Hume (171176) and the early Ludwig Wittgenstein (18891951), who held that facts are so disconnected that any fact might well have been different from what it is without entailing a change in any other fact. Rationalists have differed, however, with regard to the closeness and completeness with which the facts are bound together. At the lowest level, they have all believed that the law of contradiction A and not-A cannot coexist holds for the real world, which means that every truth is consistent with every other; at the highest level, they have held that all facts go beyond consistency to a positive coherence; i.e., they are so bound up with each other that none could be different without all being different.
In the field where its claims are clearestin epistemology, or theory of knowledgerationalism holds that at least some human knowledge is gained through a priori (prior to experience), or rational, insight as distinct from sense experience, which too often provides a confused and merely tentative approach. In the debate between empiricism and rationalism, empiricists hold the simpler and more sweeping position, the Humean claim that all knowledge of fact stems from perception. Rationalists, on the contrary, urge that some, though not all, knowledge arises through direct apprehension by the intellect. What the intellectual faculty apprehends is objects that transcend sense experienceuniversals and their relations. A universal is an abstraction, a characteristic that may reappear in various instances: the number three, for example, or the triangularity that all triangles have in common. Though these cannot be seen, heard, or felt, rationalists point out that humans can plainly think about them and about their relations. This kind of knowledge, which includes the whole of logic and mathematics as well as fragmentary insights in many other fields, is, in the rationalist view, the most important and certain knowledge that the mind can achieve. Such a priori knowledge is both necessary (i.e., it cannot be conceived as otherwise) and universal, in the sense that it admits of no exceptions. In the critical philosophy of Immanuel Kant (17241804), epistemological rationalism finds expression in the claim that the mind imposes its own inherent categories or forms upon incipient experience (see below Epistemological rationalism in modern philosophies).
In ethics, rationalism holds the position that reason, rather than feeling, custom, or authority, is the ultimate court of appeal in judging good and bad, right and wrong. Among major thinkers, the most notable representative of rational ethics is Kant, who held that the way to judge an act is to check its self-consistency as apprehended by the intellect: to note, first, what it is essentially, or in principlea lie, for example, or a theftand then to ask if one can consistently will that the principle be made universal. Is theft, then, right? The answer must be No, because, if theft were generally approved, peoples property would not be their own as opposed to anyone elses, and theft would then become meaningless; the notion, if universalized, would thus destroy itself, as reason by itself is sufficient to show.
In religion, rationalism commonly means that all human knowledge comes through the use of natural faculties, without the aid of supernatural revelation. Reason is here used in a broader sense, referring to human cognitive powers generally, as opposed to supernatural grace or faiththough it is also in sharp contrast to so-called existential approaches to truth. Reason, for the rationalist, thus stands opposed to many of the religions of the world, including Christianity, which have held that the divine has revealed itself through inspired persons or writings and which have required, at times, that its claims be accepted as infallible, even when they do not accord with natural knowledge. Religious rationalists hold, on the other hand, that if the clear insights of human reason must be set aside in favour of alleged revelation, then human thought is everywhere rendered suspecteven in the reasonings of the theologians themselves. There cannot be two ultimately different ways of warranting truth, they assert; hence rationalism urges that reason, with its standard of consistency, must be the final court of appeal. Religious rationalism can reflect either a traditional piety, when endeavouring to display the alleged sweet reasonableness of religion, or an antiauthoritarian temper, when aiming to supplant religion with the goddess of reason.
Link:
Rationalism | Definition, Types, History, Examples, & Descartes
Rationalism – Wikipedia
Philosophical view regarding reason and knowledge
In philosophy, rationalism is the epistemological view that "regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge"[1] or "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification".[2] More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory "in which the criterion of truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive".[3]
In an old[4] controversy, rationalism was opposed to empiricism, where the rationalists believed that reality has an intrinsically logical structure. Because of this, the rationalists argued that certain truths exist and that the intellect can directly grasp these truths. That is to say, rationalists asserted that certain rational principles exist in logic, mathematics, ethics, and metaphysics that are so fundamentally true that denying them causes one to fall into contradiction. The rationalists had such a high confidence in reason that empirical proof and physical evidence were regarded as unnecessary to ascertain certain truths in other words, "there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience".[5]
Different degrees of emphasis on this method or theory lead to a range of rationalist standpoints, from the moderate position "that reason has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge" to the more extreme position that reason is "the unique path to knowledge".[6] Given a pre-modern understanding of reason, rationalism is identical to philosophy, the Socratic life of inquiry, or the zetetic (skeptical) clear interpretation of authority (open to the underlying or essential cause of things as they appear to our sense of certainty). In recent decades, Leo Strauss sought to revive "Classical Political Rationalism" as a discipline that understands the task of reasoning, not as foundational, but as maieutic.
Rationalism as an appeal to human reason as a way of obtaining knowledge has a philosophical history dating from antiquity. The analytical nature of much of philosophical enquiry, the awareness of apparently a priori domains of knowledge such as mathematics, combined with the emphasis of obtaining knowledge through the use of rational faculties (commonly rejecting, for example, direct revelation) have made rationalist themes very prevalent in the history of philosophy.
Since the Enlightenment, rationalism is usually associated with the introduction of mathematical methods into philosophy as seen in the works of Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza.[3] This is commonly called continental rationalism, because it was predominant in the continental schools of Europe, whereas in Britain empiricism dominated.
Even then, the distinction between rationalists and empiricists was drawn at a later period and would not have been recognized by the philosophers involved. Also, the distinction between the two philosophies is not as clear-cut as is sometimes suggested; for example, Descartes and Locke have similar views about the nature of human ideas.[5]
Proponents of some varieties of rationalism argue that, starting with foundational basic principles, like the axioms of geometry, one could deductively derive the rest of all possible knowledge. Notable philosophers who held this view most clearly were Baruch Spinoza and Gottfried Leibniz, whose attempts to grapple with the epistemological and metaphysical problems raised by Descartes led to a development of the fundamental approach of rationalism. Both Spinoza and Leibniz asserted that, in principle, all knowledge, including scientific knowledge, could be gained through the use of reason alone, though they both observed that this was not possible in practice for human beings except in specific areas such as mathematics. On the other hand, Leibniz admitted in his book Monadology that "we are all mere Empirics in three fourths of our actions."[6]
In politics, rationalism, since the Enlightenment, historically emphasized a "politics of reason" centered upon rational choice, deontology, utilitarianism, secularism, and irreligion[7] the latter aspect's antitheism was later softened by the adoption of pluralistic reasoning methods practicable regardless of religious or irreligious ideology.[8][9] In this regard, the philosopher John Cottingham[10] noted how rationalism, a methodology, became socially conflated with atheism, a worldview:
In the past, particularly in the 17th and 18th centuries, the term 'rationalist' was often used to refer to free thinkers of an anti-clerical and anti-religious outlook, and for a time the word acquired a distinctly pejorative force (thus in 1670 Sanderson spoke disparagingly of 'a mere rationalist, that is to say in plain English an atheist of the late edition...'). The use of the label 'rationalist' to characterize a world outlook which has no place for the supernatural is becoming less popular today; terms like 'humanist' or 'materialist' seem largely to have taken its place. But the old usage still survives.
Rationalism is often contrasted with empiricism. Taken very broadly, these views are not mutually exclusive, since a philosopher can be both rationalist and empiricist.[2] Taken to extremes, the empiricist view holds that all ideas come to us a posteriori, that is to say, through experience; either through the external senses or through such inner sensations as pain and gratification. The empiricist essentially believes that knowledge is based on or derived directly from experience. The rationalist believes we come to knowledge a priori through the use of logic and is thus independent of sensory experience. In other words, as Galen Strawson once wrote, "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science."[11]
Between both philosophies, the issue at hand is the fundamental source of human knowledge and the proper techniques for verifying what we think we know. Whereas both philosophies are under the umbrella of epistemology, their argument lies in the understanding of the warrant, which is under the wider epistemic umbrella of the theory of justification. Part of epistemology, this theory attempts to understand the justification of propositions and beliefs. Epistemologists are concerned with various epistemic features of belief, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, and probability. Of these four terms, the term that has been most widely used and discussed by the early 21st century is "warrant". Loosely speaking, justification is the reason that someone (probably) holds a belief.
If A makes a claim and then B casts doubt on it, A's next move would normally be to provide justification for the claim. The precise method one uses to provide justification is where the lines are drawn between rationalism and empiricism (among other philosophical views). Much of the debate in these fields are focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification.
At its core, rationalism consists of three basic claims. For people to consider themselves rationalists, they must adopt at least one of these three claims: the intuition/deduction thesis, the innate knowledge thesis, or the innate concept thesis. In addition, a rationalist can choose to adopt the claim of Indispensability of Reason and or the claim of Superiority of Reason, although one can be a rationalist without adopting either thesis.[citation needed]
The indispensability of reason thesis: "The knowledge we gain in subject area, S, by intuition and deduction, as well as the ideas and instances of knowledge in S that are innate to us, could not have been gained by us through sense experience."[1] In short, this thesis claims that experience cannot provide what we gain from reason.
The superiority of reason thesis: '"The knowledge we gain in subject area S by intuition and deduction or have innately is superior to any knowledge gained by sense experience".[1] In other words, this thesis claims reason is superior to experience as a source for knowledge.
Rationalists often adopt similar stances on other aspects of philosophy. Most rationalists reject skepticism for the areas of knowledge they claim are knowable a priori. When you claim some truths are innately known to us, one must reject skepticism in relation to those truths. Especially for rationalists who adopt the Intuition/Deduction thesis, the idea of epistemic foundationalism tends to crop up. This is the view that we know some truths without basing our belief in them on any others and that we then use this foundational knowledge to know more truths.[1]
"Some propositions in a particular subject area, S, are knowable by us by intuition alone; still others are knowable by being deduced from intuited propositions."[12]
Generally speaking, intuition is a priori knowledge or experiential belief characterized by its immediacy; a form of rational insight. We simply "see" something in such a way as to give us a warranted belief. Beyond that, the nature of intuition is hotly debated.In the same way, generally speaking, deduction is the process of reasoning from one or more general premises to reach a logically certain conclusion. Using valid arguments, we can deduce from intuited premises.
For example, when we combine both concepts, we can intuit that the number three is prime and that it is greater than two. We then deduce from this knowledge that there is a prime number greater than two. Thus, it can be said that intuition and deduction combined to provide us with a priori knowledge we gained this knowledge independently of sense experience.
To argue in favor of this thesis, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, a prominent German philosopher, says,
The senses, although they are necessary for all our actual knowledge, are not sufficient to give us the whole of it, since the senses never give anything but instances, that is to say particular or individual truths. Now all the instances which confirm a general truth, however numerous they may be, are not sufficient to establish the universal necessity of this same truth, for it does not follow that what happened before will happen in the same way again. From which it appears that necessary truths, such as we find in pure mathematics, and particularly in arithmetic and geometry, must have principles whose proof does not depend on instances, nor consequently on the testimony of the senses, although without the senses it would never have occurred to us to think of them[13]
Empiricists such as David Hume have been willing to accept this thesis for describing the relationships among our own concepts.[12] In this sense, empiricists argue that we are allowed to intuit and deduce truths from knowledge that has been obtained a posteriori.
By injecting different subjects into the Intuition/Deduction thesis, we are able to generate different arguments. Most rationalists agree mathematics is knowable by applying the intuition and deduction. Some go further to include ethical truths into the category of things knowable by intuition and deduction. Furthermore, some rationalists also claim metaphysics is knowable in this thesis. Naturally, the more subjects the rationalists claim to be knowable by the Intuition/Deduction thesis, the more certain they are of their warranted beliefs, and the more strictly they adhere to the infallibility of intuition, the more controversial their truths or claims and the more radical their rationalism.[12]
In addition to different subjects, rationalists sometimes vary the strength of their claims by adjusting their understanding of the warrant. Some rationalists understand warranted beliefs to be beyond even the slightest doubt; others are more conservative and understand the warrant to be belief beyond a reasonable doubt.
Rationalists also have different understanding and claims involving the connection between intuition and truth. Some rationalists claim that intuition is infallible and that anything we intuit to be true is as such. More contemporary rationalists accept that intuition is not always a source of certain knowledge thus allowing for the possibility of a deceiver who might cause the rationalist to intuit a false proposition in the same way a third party could cause the rationalist to have perceptions of nonexistent objects.
"We have knowledge of some truths in a particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature."[14]
The Innate Knowledge thesis is similar to the Intuition/Deduction thesis in the regard that both theses claim knowledge is gained a priori. The two theses go their separate ways when describing how that knowledge is gained. As the name, and the rationale, suggests, the Innate Knowledge thesis claims knowledge is simply part of our rational nature. Experiences can trigger a process that allows this knowledge to come into our consciousness, but the experiences don't provide us with the knowledge itself. The knowledge has been with us since the beginning and the experience simply brought into focus, in the same way a photographer can bring the background of a picture into focus by changing the aperture of the lens. The background was always there, just not in focus.
This thesis targets a problem with the nature of inquiry originally postulated by Plato in Meno. Here, Plato asks about inquiry; how do we gain knowledge of a theorem in geometry? We inquire into the matter. Yet, knowledge by inquiry seems impossible.[15] In other words, "If we already have the knowledge, there is no place for inquiry. If we lack the knowledge, we don't know what we are seeking and cannot recognize it when we find it. Either way we cannot gain knowledge of the theorem by inquiry. Yet, we do know some theorems."[14] The Innate Knowledge thesis offers a solution to this paradox. By claiming that knowledge is already with us, either consciously or unconsciously, a rationalist claims we don't really "learn" things in the traditional usage of the word, but rather that we simply bring to light what we already know.
"We have some of the concepts we employ in a particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature."[16]
Similar to the Innate Knowledge thesis, the Innate Concept thesis suggests that some concepts are simply part of our rational nature. These concepts are a priori in nature and sense experience is irrelevant to determining the nature of these concepts (though, sense experience can help bring the concepts to our conscious mind).
In his book, Meditations on First Philosophy,[17] Ren Descartes postulates three classifications for our ideas when he says, "Among my ideas, some appear to be innate, some to be adventitious, and others to have been invented by me. My understanding of what a thing is, what truth is, and what thought is, seems to derive simply from my own nature. But my hearing a noise, as I do now, or seeing the sun, or feeling the fire, comes from things which are located outside me, or so I have hitherto judged. Lastly, sirens, hippogriffs and the like are my own invention."[18]
Adventitious ideas are those concepts that we gain through sense experiences, ideas such as the sensation of heat, because they originate from outside sources; transmitting their own likeness rather than something else and something you simply cannot will away. Ideas invented by us, such as those found in mythology, legends, and fairy tales are created by us from other ideas we possess. Lastly, innate ideas, such as our ideas of perfection, are those ideas we have as a result of mental processes that are beyond what experience can directly or indirectly provide.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz defends the idea of innate concepts by suggesting the mind plays a role in determining the nature of concepts, to explain this, he likens the mind to a block of marble in the New Essays on Human Understanding,
This is why I have taken as an illustration a block of veined marble, rather than a wholly uniform block or blank tablets, that is to say what is called tabula rasa in the language of the philosophers. For if the soul were like those blank tablets, truths would be in us in the same way as the figure of Hercules is in a block of marble, when the marble is completely indifferent whether it receives this or some other figure. But if there were veins in the stone which marked out the figure of Hercules rather than other figures, this stone would be more determined thereto, and Hercules would be as it were in some manner innate in it, although labour would be needed to uncover the veins, and to clear them by polishing, and by cutting away what prevents them from appearing. It is in this way that ideas and truths are innate in us, like natural inclinations and dispositions, natural habits or potentialities, and not like activities, although these potentialities are always accompanied by some activities which correspond to them, though they are often imperceptible."[19]
Some philosophers, such as John Locke (who is considered one of the most influential thinkers of the Enlightenment and an empiricist) argue that the Innate Knowledge thesis and the Innate Concept thesis are the same.[20] Other philosophers, such as Peter Carruthers, argue that the two theses are distinct from one another. As with the other theses covered under the umbrella of rationalism, the more types and greater number of concepts a philosopher claims to be innate, the more controversial and radical their position; "the more a concept seems removed from experience and the mental operations we can perform on experience the more plausibly it may be claimed to be innate. Since we do not experience perfect triangles but do experience pains, our concept of the former is a more promising candidate for being innate than our concept of the latter.[16]
Although rationalism in its modern form post-dates antiquity, philosophers from this time laid down the foundations of rationalism.[citation needed] In particular, the understanding that we may be aware of knowledge available only through the use of rational thought.[citation needed]
Pythagoras was one of the first Western philosophers to stress rationalist insight.[21] He is often revered as a great mathematician, mystic and scientist, but he is best known for the Pythagorean theorem, which bears his name, and for discovering the mathematical relationship between the length of strings on lute and the pitches of the notes. Pythagoras "believed these harmonies reflected the ultimate nature of reality. He summed up the implied metaphysical rationalism in the words "All is number". It is probable that he had caught the rationalist's vision, later seen by Galileo (15641642), of a world governed throughout by mathematically formulable laws".[22] It has been said that he was the first man to call himself a philosopher, or lover of wisdom.[23]
Plato held rational insight to a very high standard, as is seen in his works such as Meno and The Republic. He taught on the Theory of Forms (or the Theory of Ideas)[24][25][26] which asserts that the highest and most fundamental kind of reality is not the material world of change known to us through sensation, but rather the abstract, non-material (but substantial) world of forms (or ideas).[27] For Plato, these forms were accessible only to reason and not to sense.[22] In fact, it is said that Plato admired reason, especially in geometry, so highly that he had the phrase "Let no one ignorant of geometry enter" inscribed over the door to his academy.[28]
Aristotle's main contribution to rationalist thinking was the use of syllogistic logic and its use in argument. Aristotle defines syllogism as "a discourse in which certain (specific) things having been supposed, something different from the things supposed results of necessity because these things are so."[29] Despite this very general definition, Aristotle limits himself to categorical syllogisms which consist of three categorical propositions in his work Prior Analytics.[30] These included categorical modal syllogisms.[31]
Although the three great Greek philosophers disagreed with one another on specific points, they all agreed that rational thought could bring to light knowledge that was self-evident information that humans otherwise could not know without the use of reason. After Aristotle's death, Western rationalistic thought was generally characterized by its application to theology, such as in the works of Augustine, the Islamic philosopher Avicenna (Ibn Sina), Averroes (Ibn Rushd), and Jewish philosopher and theologian Maimonides. One notable event in the Western timeline was the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas who attempted to merge Greek rationalism and Christian revelation in the thirteenth-century.[22][32] Generally, the Roman Catholic Church viewed Rationalists as a threat, labeling them as those who "while admitting revelation, reject from the word of God whatever, in their private judgment, is inconsistent with human reason."[33]
Descartes was the first of the modern rationalists and has been dubbed the 'Father of Modern Philosophy.' Much subsequent Western philosophy is a response to his writings,[34][35][36] which are studied closely to this day.
Descartes thought that only knowledge of eternal truths including the truths of mathematics, and the epistemological and metaphysical foundations of the sciences could be attained by reason alone; other knowledge, the knowledge of physics, required experience of the world, aided by the scientific method. He also argued that although dreams appear as real as sense experience, these dreams cannot provide persons with knowledge. Also, since conscious sense experience can be the cause of illusions, then sense experience itself can be doubtable. As a result, Descartes deduced that a rational pursuit of truth should doubt every belief about sensory reality. He elaborated these beliefs in such works as Discourse on the Method, Meditations on First Philosophy, and Principles of Philosophy. Descartes developed a method to attain truths according to which nothing that cannot be recognised by the intellect (or reason) can be classified as knowledge. These truths are gained "without any sensory experience," according to Descartes. Truths that are attained by reason are broken down into elements that intuition can grasp, which, through a purely deductive process, will result in clear truths about reality.
Descartes therefore argued, as a result of his method, that reason alone determined knowledge, and that this could be done independently of the senses. For instance, his famous dictum, cogito ergo sum or "I think, therefore I am", is a conclusion reached a priori i.e., prior to any kind of experience on the matter. The simple meaning is that doubting one's existence, in and of itself, proves that an "I" exists to do the thinking. In other words, doubting one's own doubting is absurd.[21] This was, for Descartes, an irrefutable principle upon which to ground all forms of other knowledge. Descartes posited a metaphysical dualism, distinguishing between the substances of the human body ("res extensa") and the mind or soul ("res cogitans"). This crucial distinction would be left unresolved and lead to what is known as the mind-body problem, since the two substances in the Cartesian system are independent of each other and irreducible.
The philosophy of Baruch Spinoza is a systematic, logical, rational philosophy developed in seventeenth-century Europe.[37][38][39] Spinoza's philosophy is a system of ideas constructed upon basic building blocks with an internal consistency with which he tried to answer life's major questions and in which he proposed that "God exists only philosophically."[39][40] He was heavily influenced by Descartes,[41] Euclid[40] and Thomas Hobbes,[41] as well as theologians in the Jewish philosophical tradition such as Maimonides.[41] But his work was in many respects a departure from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Many of Spinoza's ideas continue to vex thinkers today and many of his principles, particularly regarding the emotions, have implications for modern approaches to psychology. To this day, many important thinkers have found Spinoza's "geometrical method"[39] difficult to comprehend: Goethe admitted that he found this concept confusing.[citation needed] His magnum opus, Ethics, contains unresolved obscurities and has a forbidding mathematical structure modeled on Euclid's geometry.[40] Spinoza's philosophy attracted believers such as Albert Einstein[42] and much intellectual attention.[43][44][45][46][47]
Leibniz was the last major figure of seventeenth-century rationalism who contributed heavily to other fields such as metaphysics, epistemology, logic, mathematics, physics, jurisprudence, and the philosophy of religion; he is also considered to be one of the last "universal geniuses".[48] He did not develop his system, however, independently of these advances. Leibniz rejected Cartesian dualism and denied the existence of a material world. In Leibniz's view there are infinitely many simple substances, which he called "monads" (which he derived directly from Proclus).
Leibniz developed his theory of monads in response to both Descartes and Spinoza, because the rejection of their visions forced him to arrive at his own solution. Monads are the fundamental unit of reality, according to Leibniz, constituting both inanimate and animate objects. These units of reality represent the universe, though they are not subject to the laws of causality or space (which he called "well-founded phenomena"). Leibniz, therefore, introduced his principle of pre-established harmony to account for apparent causality in the world.
Kant is one of the central figures of modern philosophy, and set the terms by which all subsequent thinkers have had to grapple. He argued that human perception structures natural laws, and that reason is the source of morality. His thought continues to hold a major influence in contemporary thought, especially in fields such as metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, and aesthetics.[49]
Kant named his brand of epistemology "Transcendental Idealism", and he first laid out these views in his famous work The Critique of Pure Reason. In it he argued that there were fundamental problems with both rationalist and empiricist dogma. To the rationalists he argued, broadly, that pure reason is flawed when it goes beyond its limits and claims to know those things that are necessarily beyond the realm of every possible experience: the existence of God, free will, and the immortality of the human soul. Kant referred to these objects as "The Thing in Itself" and goes on to argue that their status as objects beyond all possible experience by definition means we cannot know them. To the empiricist, he argued that while it is correct that experience is fundamentally necessary for human knowledge, reason is necessary for processing that experience into coherent thought. He therefore concludes that both reason and experience are necessary for human knowledge. In the same way, Kant also argued that it was wrong to regard thought as mere analysis. "In Kant's views, a priori concepts do exist, but if they are to lead to the amplification of knowledge, they must be brought into relation with empirical data".[50]
Rationalism has become a rarer label of philosophers today; rather many different kinds of specialised rationalisms are identified. For example, Robert Brandom has appropriated the terms "rationalist expressivism" and "rationalist pragmatism" as labels for aspects of his programme in Articulating Reasons, and identified "linguistic rationalism", the claim that the contents of propositions "are essentially what can serve as both premises and conclusions of inferences", as a key thesis of Wilfred Sellars.[51]
Rationalism was criticized by American psychologist William James for being out of touch with reality. James also criticized rationalism for representing the universe as a closed system, which contrasts with his view that the universe is an open system.[52]
Originally posted here:
What is Rationalism? | Rationalism Philosophy & Examples – Video …
Rationalism Definition
Most of us have heard the expression, ''Be rational'', especially when we're reacting emotionally. This is like when our motivations are inspired by things that don't necessarily make a lot of sense to other people, or it's clear that our perspective is skewed because of our feelings. Like our feelings, our senses can also project a skewed perception of reality. Take optical illusions for example. Our sense of truth isn't actually real, so we're not being rational.
Essentially, rationalism regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge or what's true. Truth, in the case of rationalism, is not sensory but intellectual, which is why rationalists believe that knowledge can be acquired through reason alone. This makes rationalism a priori, meaning that we gain knowledge without experience through the use of reason. Rationalism applies primarily to logic and mathematics, meaning that there is a calculated and reasoned approach to conclusions or the truth.
In rationalism, knowledge is acquired in three ways:
While deduction relies on principles or formulas to find answers, reason offers different ways to find the truth or draw conclusions. For example, let's take the biblical story of the Judgment of Solomon. Solomon had to resolve a dispute between two women who claimed to be the mother of a baby. Since this was long before DNA testing, Solomon ordered that the baby be cut in half.
Upon hearing this, one of the women cried out not to harm the child and to let the other woman take the baby. Solomon concluded through logic that the woman who cried out to spare the child was actually the child's mother because the mother would rather the child live than win an argument.
Rationalism finds that truths are held by intellect. As rationalism became a more popular philosophy in the 17th and 18th centuries, it was also connected to metaphysical truths and ethical truths. For example, the statement: ''Slavery is wrong'' is an example of an ethical truth, which makes it a rational belief.
Rationalist thinkers believe that knowledge, or our understanding of truth, is acquired without sense perception. In other words, knowledge is acquired through a secular outlook, which is an outlook that is absent of religious influence. This doesn't mean that rational thinkers were atheists, though some were. Most early rationalists believed that our innate ideas were given to us from God.
The Age of Reason was a period during the Enlightenment and a time when rationalism gained in popularity. Philosophers such as Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz were responsible for articulating the fundamental beliefs of rationalism. These philosophers believed that a mathematical approach to reason was the most conducive with how the mind works.
The most well-known proponent of rationalism was French philosopher Ren Descartes, whose rationalist philosophy is often referred to as Cartesianism. His belief was that eternal truths can be discovered by reason and did not require sensory experience.
He was famous for the phrase ''I think, therefore I am.'' His perspective on rationalism was that some ideas come from God and are innate, some come from experience, which would include scientific matters such as physics, and others come from the imagination. However, he believed that fundamental truths could be determined through reason and didn't require experience to ascertain.
Descartes' ideas on rationalism of the early 1600s inspired other thinkers, such as Kant, as well as the aforementioned Spinoza and Liebniz, who expanded on the ideas that he had put forth. As rationalism expanded into other regions of the world, it was both criticized and embraced.
Some philosophers even attempted to find commonalities between rationalism and empiricism, which is essentially, for a lack of better terms, the opposite of rationalism in that empiricists believe that all knowledge arrives through the senses and experience.
Let's take a few moments to review what we've learned about rationalism. Rationalism is the idea that knowledge can be acquired through reason alone. In rationalism, truth can be found with the following things:
Fundamentally the opposite of empiricism, rationalism holds that experience isn't necessary to gain knowledge. The senses can be fooled, so rationalists believed that the only sure way to find truth was through logic and mathematical principles. Rationalism gained in popularity during the Age of Reason, which was a period during the Enlightenment, and was heavily promoted by French philosopher Ren Descartes.
See more here:
What is Rationalism? | Rationalism Philosophy & Examples - Video ...
Rationalism | History of Western Civilization II – Lumen Learning
Rationalism, or a belief that we come to knowledge through the use of logic, and thus independently of sensory experience, was critical to the debates of the Enlightenment period, when most philosophers lauded the power of reason but insisted that knowledge comes from experience.
Define rationalism and its role in the ideas of the Enlightenment
Rationalismas an appeal to human reason as a way of obtaining knowledgehas a philosophical history dating from antiquity. While rationalism, as the view that reason is the main source of knowledge, did not dominate the Enlightenment, it laid critical basis for the debates that developed over the course of the 18th century. As the Enlightenment centered on reason as the primary source of authority and legitimacy, many philosophers of the period drew from earlier philosophical contributions, most notably those of RenDescartes(1596-1650), a French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist. Descartes was the first of the modern rationalists. He thought that only knowledge of eternal truths (including the truths of mathematics and the foundations of the sciences) could be attained by reason alone, while the knowledge of physics required experience of the world, aided by the scientific method. Heargued that reason alone determined knowledge, and that this could be done independently of the senses. For instance, his famous dictum, cogito ergo sum, or I think, therefore I am, is a conclusion reached a priori(i.e., prior to any kind of experience on the matter). The simple meaning is that doubting ones existence, in and of itself, proves that an I exists to do the thinking.
Ren Descartes, after Frans Hals, 2nd half of the 17th century.
Descartes laid the foundation for 17th-century continental rationalism, later advocated by Baruch Spinozaand Gottfried Leibniz, and opposed by the empiricistschool of thought consisting of Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume. Leibniz, Spinoza, and Descartes were all well-versed in mathematics, as well as philosophy, and Descartes and Leibniz contributed greatly to science as well.
Since the Enlightenment, rationalism is usually associated with the introduction of mathematical methods into philosophy, as seen in the works of Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza. This is commonly called continental rationalism, because it was predominant in the continental schools of Europe, whereas in Britain, empiricism, or a theory that knowledge comes only or primarily from a sensory experience,dominated. Although rationalism and empiricism are traditionally seen as opposing each other, the distinction between rationalists and empiricists was drawn at a later period, and would not have been recognized by philosophers involved in Enlightenment debates. Furthermore, the distinction between the two philosophies is not as clear-cut as is sometimes suggested. For example, Descartes and John Locke, one of the most important Enlightenment thinkers, have similar views about the nature of human ideas.
Proponents of some varieties of rationalism argue that, starting with foundational basic principles, like the axioms of geometry, one could deductively derive the rest of all possible knowledge. The philosophers who held this view most clearly were Baruch Spinoza and Gottfried Leibniz, whose attempts to grapple with the epistemological and metaphysical problems raised by Descartes led to a development of the fundamental approach of rationalism. Both Spinoza and Leibniz asserted that, in principle, all knowledge, including scientific knowledge, could be gained through the use of reason alone, though they both observed that this was not possible in practice for human beings, except in specific areas, such as mathematics. On the other hand, Leibniz admitted in his book, Monadology, that we are all mere Empirics in three fourths of our actions.
Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz are usually credited for laying the groundwork for the 18th-century Enlightenment. During the mature Enlightenment period, Immanuel Kant attempted to explain the relationship between reason and human experience, and to move beyond the failures of traditional philosophy and metaphysics. He wanted to put an end to an era of futile and speculative theories of human experience, and regarded himself as ending and showing the way beyond the impasse between rationalistsand empiricists. He is widely held to have synthesized these two early modern traditions in his thought.
Kant named his brand of epistemology (theory of knowledge) transcendental idealism, and he first laid out these views in his famous work, The Critique of Pure Reason. In it, he argued that there were fundamental problems with both rationalist and empiricist dogma. To the rationalists he argued, broadly, that pure reason is flawed when it goes beyond its limits and claims to know those things that are necessarily beyond the realm of all possible experience (e.g., the existence of God, free will, or the immortality of the human soul). To the empiricist, he argued that while it is correct that experience is fundamentally necessary for human knowledge, reason is necessary for processing that experience into coherent thought. He therefore concluded that both reason and experience are necessary for human knowledge. In the same way, Kant also argued that it was wrong to regard thought as mere analysis. In his views, a priori concepts do exist, but if they are to lead to the amplification of knowledge, they must be brought into relation with empirical data.
Immanuel Kant, author unknown Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) rejected the dogmas of both rationalism and empiricism, and tried to reconcile rationalismand religious belief, and individual freedom and political authority, as well as map out a view of the public sphere through private and public reason. His work continued to shape German thought, and indeed all of European philosophy, well into the 20th century.
Since the Enlightenment, rationalism in politics historically emphasized a politics of reason centered upon rational choice, utilitarianism, and secularism (later, relationship between rationalism and religion was ameliorated by the adoption of pluralistic rationalist methods practicable regardless of religious or irreligious ideology). Some philosophers today, most notably John Cottingham, note that rationalism, a methodology, became socially conflated with atheism, a worldview. Cottingham writes,
In the past, particularly in the 17th and 18th centuries, the term rationalist was often used to refer to free thinkers of an anti-clerical and anti-religious outlook, and for a time the word acquired a distinctly pejorative force (). The use of the label rationalist to characterize a world outlook which has no place for the supernatural is becoming less popular today; terms like humanist or materialist seem largely to have taken its place. But the old usage still survives.
Read this article:
Rationalism | History of Western Civilization II - Lumen Learning
Rationalism – History of rationalism | Britannica
The first Western philosopher to stress rationalist insight was Pythagoras, a shadowy figure of the 6th century bce. Noticing that, for a right triangle, a square built on its hypotenuse equals the sum of those on its sides and that the pitches of notes sounded on a lute bear a mathematical relation to the lengths of the strings, Pythagoras held that these harmonies reflected the ultimate nature of reality. He summed up the implied metaphysical rationalism in the words All is number. It is probable that he had caught the rationalists vision, later seen by Galileo (15641642), of a world governed throughout by mathematically formulable laws.
The difficulty in this view, however, is that, working with universals and their relations, which, like the multiplication table, are timeless and changeless, it assumes a static world and ignores the particular, changing things of daily life. The difficulty was met boldly by the rationalist Parmenides (born c. 515 bce), who insisted that the world really is a static whole and that the realm of change and motion is an illusion, or even a self-contradiction. His disciple Zeno of Elea (c. 495c. 430 bce) further argued that anything thought to be moving is confronted with a row of points infinite in number, all of which it must traverse; hence it can never reach its goal, nor indeed move at all. Of course, perception tells us that we do move, but Zeno, compelled to choose between perception and reason, clung to reason.
The exalting of rational insight above perception was also prominent in Plato (c. 427c. 347 bce). In the Meno, Socrates (c. 470399 bce) dramatized the innateness of knowledge by calling upon an illiterate slave boy and, drawing a square in the sand, proceeding to elicit from him, step by step, the proof of a theorem in geometry of which the boy could never have heard (to double the size of a square, draw a square on the diagonal). Such knowledge, rationalists insist, is certain, universal, and completely unlearned.
Plato so greatly admired the rigorous reasoning of geometry that he is alleged to have inscribed over the door of his Academy the phrase Let no one unacquainted with geometry enter here. His famous forms are accessible only to reason, not to sense. But how are they related to sensible things? His answers differed. Sometimes he viewed the forms as distilling those common properties of a class in virtue of which one identifies anything as a member of it. Thus, what makes anything a triangle is its having three straight sides; this is its essence. At other times, Plato held that the form is an ideal, a non-sensible goal to which the sensible thing approximates; the geometers perfect triangle never was on sea or land, though all actual triangles more or less embody it. He conceived the forms as more real than the sensible things that are their shadows and saw that philosophers must penetrate to these invisible essences and see with their minds eye how they are linked together. For Plato they formed an orderly system that was at once eternal, intelligible, and good.
Platos successor Aristotle (384322 bce) conceived of the work of reason in much the same way, though he did not view the forms as independent. His chief contribution to rationalism lay in his syllogistic logic, regarded as the chief instrument of rational explanation. Humans explain particular facts by bringing them under general principles. Why does one think Socrates will die? Because he is human, and humans are mortal. Why should one accept the general principle itself that all humans are mortal? In experience such principles have so far held without exception. But the mind cannot finally rest in this sort of explanation. Humans never wholly understand a fact or event until they can bring it under a principle that is self-evident and necessary; they then have the clearest explanation possible. On this central thesis of rationalism, the three great Greeks were in accord.
Nothing comparable in importance to their thought appeared in rationalistic philosophy in the next 1,800 years, though the work of St. Thomas Aquinas (c. 122574) was an impressive attempt to blend Greek rationalism and Christian revelation into a single harmonious system.
Read more:
Rationalism – Religious rationalism | Britannica
Stirrings of religious rationalism were already felt in the Middle Ages regarding the Christian revelation. Thus, the skeptical mind of Peter Abelard (10791142) raised doubts by showing in his Sic et non (Yes and No) many contradictions among beliefs handed down as revealed truths by the Church Fathers. Aquinas, the greatest of the medieval thinkers, was a rationalist in the sense of believing that the larger part of revealed truth was intelligible to and demonstrable by reason, though he thought that a number of dogmas opaque to reason must be accepted on authority alone.
Religious rationalism did not come into its own, however, until the 16th and 17th centuries, when it took two chief forms: the scientific and the philosophical.
Galileo was a pioneer in astronomy and the founder of modern dynamics. He conceived of nature as governed throughout by laws statable with mathematical precision; the book of nature, he said, is written in mathematical form. This notion not only ruled out the occasional appeal to miracle; it also collided with dogmas regarding the permanent structure of the worldin particular with that which viewed the Earth as the motionless centre of the universe. When Galileos demonstration that the Earth moves around the Sun was confirmed by the work of Sir Isaac Newton (16421727) and others, a battle was won that marked a turning point in the history of rationalism, since it provided a decisive victory in a crucial case of conflict between reason and apparently revealed truth.
The rationalism of Descartes, as already shown, was the outcome of philosophical doubt rather than of scientific inquiry. The self-evidence of the cogito, seen by his natural light, he made the ideal for all other knowledge. The uneasiness that the church soon felt in the face of such a test was not unfounded, for Descartes was in effect exalting the natural light into the supreme court even in the field of religion. He argued that the guarantee against the possibility that even this natural light might be deceptive lay in the goodness of the Creator. But then to prove this Creator, he had to assume the prior validity of the natural light itself. Logically, therefore, the last word lay with rational insight, not with any outside divine warrant (see Cartesian circle). Descartes was inadvertently beginning a Copernican revolution in theology. Before his time, the truths regarded as most certain were those accepted from revelation; afterward these truths were subject to the judgment of human reason, thus breaking the hold of authority on the European mind.
The rationalist attitude quickly spread, its advance forming several waves of general interest and influence. The first wave occurred in England in the form of Deism. Deists accepted the existence of God but spurned supernatural revelation. The earliest member of this school, Lord Herbert of Cherbury (15831648), held that a just God would not reveal himself to a part of his creation only and that the true religion is thus a universal one, which achieves its knowledge of God through common reason. The Deistic philosopher John Toland (16701722), in his Christianity Not Mysterious (1696), sought to show that there is nothing in the Gospels contrary to reason, nor above it; any doctrine that is really above reason would be meaningless to humans. Attacking revelation, the freethinking polemicist Anthony Collins (16761729) maintained that the prophecies of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) failed of fulfillment; and the religious controversialist Thomas Woolston (16701733) urged that the New Testament miracles, as recorded, are incredible. Matthew Tindal (16571733), most learned of the English Deists, argued that the essential part of Christianity is its ethics, which, being clearly apparent to natural reason, leaves revelation superfluous. Thus the Deists, professing for the most part to be religious themselves, did much to reconcile their public to the free play of ideas in religion.
The second wave of religious rationalism, less moderate in tone and consequences, was French. This wave, reflecting an engagement with the problem of natural evil, involved a decay in the natural theology of Deism such that it merged eventually with the stream that led to materialistic atheism. Its moving spirit was Voltaire (16941778), who had been impressed by some of the Deists during a stay in England. Like them, he thought that a rational person would believe in God but not in supernatural inspiration. Hardly a profound philosopher, he was a brilliant journalist, clever and humorous in argument, devastating in satire, and warm in human sympathies. In his Candide and in many other writings, he poured irreverent ridicule on the Christian scheme of salvation as incoherent and on the church hierarchy as cruel and oppressive. In these attitudes he had the support of Denis Diderot (171384), editor of the most widely read encyclopaedia that had appeared in Europe. The rationalism of these thinkers and their followers, directed against both the religious and the political traditions of their time, did much to prepare the ground for the explosive French Revolution.
The next wave of religious rationalism occurred in Germany under the influence of Hegel, who held that a religious creed is a halfway house on the road to a mature philosophy, the product of a reason that is still under the sway of feeling and imagination. This idea was taken up and applied with learning and acuteness to the origins of Christianity by David Friedrich Strauss (180874), who published in 1835, at the age of 27, a remarkable and influential three-volume work, Das Leben Jesu (The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined, 1846). Relying largely on internal inconsistencies in the Synoptic Gospels, Strauss undertook to prove these books to be unacceptable as revelation and unsatisfactory as history. He then sought to show how an imaginative people innocent of either history or science, convinced that a messiah would appear, and deeply moved by a unique moral genius, inevitably wove myths about his birth and death, his miracles, and his divine communings.
Strausss thought as it affected religion was continued by the philosophical historian Ernest Renan (182392) and as it affected philosophy by the humanist Ludwig Feuerbach (180472) of the Hegelian left. Renans Vie de Jsus (1863; Life of Jesus) did for France what Strausss book had done for Germany, though the two differed greatly in character. Whereas Strausss work had been an intellectual exercise in destructive criticism, Renans was an attempt to reconstruct the mind of Jesus as a wholly human persona feat of imagination, performed with a disarming admiration and even reverence for its subject and with a felicity of style that gave it a large and lasting audience. Feuerbachs Wesen des Christentums (1841; Essence of Christianity) applied the myth theory even to belief in the existence of God, holding that man makes God in his own image.
The fourth wave occurred in Victorian England, following the publication in 1859 of Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (180982). This book was taken as a challenge to the authority of Scripture because there was a clear inconsistency between the Genesis account of creation and the biological account of humans slow emergence from lower forms of life. The battle raged with bitterness for several decades but died away as the theory of evolution gained more general acceptance.
Original post:
World War III – Wikipedia
Hypothetical future global conflict
World WarIII or the Third World War, often abbreviated as WWIII or WW3, are names given to a hypothetical worldwide large-scale military conflict subsequent to World WarI and World WarII. The term has been in use since at least as early as 1941.[1] Some apply it loosely to limited or more minor conflicts such as the Cold War or the war on terror. In contrast, others assume that such a conflict would surpass prior world wars in both scope and destructive impact.[2]
Due to the development of nuclear weapons in the Manhattan Project, which were used in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki near the end of World WarII, and their subsequent acquisition and deployment by many countries afterward, the potential risk of a nuclear apocalypse causing widespread destruction of Earth's civilization and life is a common theme in speculations about a third world war. Another primary concern is that biological warfare could cause many casualties. It could happen intentionally or inadvertently, by an accidental release of a biological agent, the unexpected mutation of an agent, or its adaptation to other species after use. Large-scale apocalyptic events like these, caused by advanced technology used for destruction, could render most of Earth's surface uninhabitable.
Before the beginning of World WarII in 1939, World WarI (19141918) was believed to have been "the war to end [all] wars". It was popularly believed that never again could there possibly be a global conflict of such magnitude. During the interwar period, World WarI was typically referred to simply as "The Great War". The outbreak of World WarII disproved the hope that humanity might have "outgrown" the need for widespread global wars.[3]
With the advent of the Cold War in 1945 and with the spread of nuclear weapons technology to the Soviet Union, the possibility of a third global conflict increased. During the Cold War years, the possibility of a third world war was anticipated and planned for by military and civil authorities in many countries. Scenarios ranged from conventional warfare to limited or total nuclear warfare. At the height of the Cold War, the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD), which determined that an all-out nuclear confrontation would destroy all of the states involved in the conflict, had been developed. The potential for the absolute destruction of the human species may have contributed to the ability of both American and Soviet leaders to avoid such a scenario.
The various global military conflicts that have occurred since the start of the 21st century, most recently the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, have been hypothesized as potential flashpoints or triggers for a third world war.[4][5]
Time magazine was an early adopter, if not originator, of the term "World WarIII". The first usage appears in its 3 November 1941 issue (preceding the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941) under its "National Affairs" section and entitled "World WarIII?" about Nazi refugee Dr. Hermann Rauschning, who had just arrived in the United States.[1] In its 22 March 1943, issue under its "Foreign News" section, Time reused the same title "World WarIII?" about statements by then-U.S. Vice President Henry A. Wallace: "We shall decide sometime in 1943 or 1944... whether to plant the seeds of World War III."[6][7] Time continued to entitle with or mention in stories the term "World WarIII" for the rest of the decade and onwards: 1944,[8][9] 1945,[10][11] 1946 ("bacterial warfare"),[12] 1947,[13] and 1948.[14] Time persists in using this term, for example, in a 2015 book review entitled "This Is What World War III Will Look Like".[15]
Military strategists have used war games to prepare for various war scenarios and to determine the most appropriate strategies. War games were utilized for World War I and World War II.[16]
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was concerned that, with the enormous size of Soviet Red Army forces deployed in Central and Eastern Europe at the end of World WarII and the unreliability of the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, there was a serious threat to Western Europe. In AprilMay 1945, the British Armed Forces developed Operation Unthinkable, thought to be the first scenario of the Third World War.[17] Its primary goal was "to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire".[18] The plan was rejected by the British Chiefs of Staff Committee as militarily unfeasible.
"Operation Dropshot" was the 1950s United States contingency plan for a possible nuclear and conventional war with the Soviet Union in the Western European and Asian theaters. Although the scenario made use of nuclear weapons, they were not expected to play a decisive role.
At the time the US nuclear arsenal was limited in size, based mostly in the United States, and depended on bombers for delivery. "Dropshot" included mission profiles that would have used 300 nuclear bombs and 29,000 high-explosive bombs on 200 targets in 100 cities and towns to wipe out 85% of the Soviet Union's industrial potential in a single stroke. Between 75 and 100 of the 300 nuclear weapons were targeted to destroy Soviet combat aircraft on the ground.
The scenario was devised before the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles. It was also devised before U.S. President John F. Kennedy and his Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara changed the US Nuclear War plan from the 'city killing' countervalue strike plan to a "counterforce" plan (targeted more at military forces). Nuclear weapons at this time were not accurate enough to hit a naval base without destroying the city adjacent to it, so the aim of using them was to destroy the enemy's industrial capacity to cripple their war economy.
Ireland started planning for a possible nuclear war as fears of World War III began to haunt their Cold War foreign policy. Co-operation between Britain and Ireland would be formed in the event of WWIII, where they would share weather data, control aids to navigation, and coordinate the Wartime Broadcasting Service that would occur after a nuclear attack.[19] Operation Sandstone in Ireland was a top-secret British-Irish military operation.[19] The armed forces from both states began a new coastal survey of Britain and Ireland cooperating from 1948 to 1955. This was a request from the United States to identify suitable landing grounds for the U.S. in the event of a successful Soviet invasion.[19][20] By 1953, the co-operation agreed upon sharing information on wartime weather and the evacuation of civilian refugees from Britain to Ireland.[19] Ireland's Operation Sandstone ended in 1966.[20]
In January 1950, the North Atlantic Council approved NATO's military strategy of containment.[21] NATO military planning took on a renewed urgency following the outbreak of the Korean War in the early 1950s, prompting NATO to establish a "force under a centralized command, adequate to deter aggression and to ensure the defense of Western Europe". Allied Command Europe was established under General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower, US Army, on 2 April 1951.[22][23] The Western Union Defence Organization had previously carried out Exercise Verity, a 1949 multilateral exercise involving naval air strikes and submarine attacks.
Exercise Mainbrace brought together 200 ships and over 50,000 personnel to practice the defense of Denmark and Norway from the Soviet attack in 1952. It was the first major NATO exercise. The exercise was jointly commanded by Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic Admiral Lynde D. McCormick, USN, and Supreme Allied Commander Europe General Matthew B. Ridgeway, US Army, during the autumn of 1952.
The United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Netherlands, and Belgium all participated.
Exercises Grand Slam and Longstep were naval exercises held in the Mediterranean Sea during 1952 to practice dislodging an enemy occupying force and amphibious assault. It involved over 170 warships and 700 aircraft under the overall command of Admiral Robert B. Carney. The overall exercise commander, Admiral Carney summarized the accomplishments of Exercise Grand Slam by stating: "We have demonstrated that the senior commanders of all four powers can successfully take charge of a mixed task force and handle it effectively as a working unit."[citation needed]
The Soviet Union called the exercises "war-like acts" by NATO, with particular reference to the participation of Norway and Denmark, and prepared for its military maneuvers in the Soviet Zone.[24][25]
Exercise Strikeback was a major NATO naval exercise held in 1957, simulating a response to an all-out Soviet attack on NATO. The exercise involved over 200 warships, 650 aircraft, and 75,000 personnel from the United States Navy, the United Kingdom's Royal Navy, the Royal Canadian Navy, the French Navy, the Royal Netherlands Navy, and the Royal Norwegian Navy. As the largest peacetime naval operation up to that time, Exercise Strikeback was characterized by military analyst Hanson W. Baldwin of The New York Times as "constituting the strongest striking fleet assembled since World WarII".[26]
Exercise Reforger (from the REturn of FORces to GERmany) was an annual exercise conducted during the Cold War by NATO. While troops could easily fly across the Atlantic, the heavy equipment and armor reinforcements would have to come by sea and be delivered to POMCUS (Pre-positioned Overseas Material Configured to Unit Sets) sites.[27] These exercises tested the United States and allied abilities to carry out transcontinental reinforcement.[27] Timely reinforcement was a critical part of the NATO reinforcement exercises. The United States needed to be able to send active-duty army divisions to Europe within ten days of receiving the notification.[27] In addition to assessing the capabilities of the United States, Reforger also monitored the personnel, facilities, and equipment of the European countries playing a significant role in the reinforcement effort.[27] The exercise was intended to ensure that NATO could quickly deploy forces to West Germany in the event of a conflict with the Warsaw Pact.
The Warsaw Pact outnumbered NATO throughout the Cold War in conventional forces, especially armor. Therefore, in the event of a Soviet invasion, in order not to resort to tactical nuclear strikes, NATO forces holding the line against a Warsaw Pact armored spearhead would have to be quickly resupplied and replaced. Most of this support would have come across the Atlantic from North America.
Reforger was not merely a show of forcein the event of a conflict, it would be the actual plan to strengthen the NATO presence in Europe. In that instance, it would have been referred to as Operation Reforger. The political goals of Reforger were to promote extended deterrence and foster NATO cohesion.[27] Important components in Reforger included the Military Airlift Command, the Military Sealift Command, and the Civil Reserve Air Fleet.
Seven Days to the River Rhine was a top-secret military simulation exercise developed in 1979 by the Warsaw Pact. It started with the assumption that NATO would launch a nuclear attack on the Vistula river valley in a first-strike scenario, which would result in as many as two million Polish civilian casualties.[28] In response, a Soviet counter-strike would be carried out against West Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark, with Warsaw Pact forces invading West Germany and aiming to stop at the River Rhine by the seventh day. Other USSR plans stopped only upon reaching the French border on day nine. Individual Warsaw Pact states were only assigned their subpart of the strategic picture; in this case, the Polish forces were only expected to go as far as Germany. The Seven Days to the Rhine plan envisioned that Poland and Germany would be largely destroyed by nuclear exchanges and that large numbers of troops would die of radiation sickness. It was estimated that NATO would fire nuclear weapons behind the advancing Soviet lines to cut off their supply lines and thus blunt their advance. While this plan assumed that NATO would use nuclear weapons to push back any Warsaw Pact invasion, it did not include nuclear strikes on France or the United Kingdom. Newspapers speculated when this plan was declassified, that France and the UK were not to be hit to get them to withhold the use of their nuclear weapons.
Exercise Able Archer was an annual exercise by the U.S. European Command that practiced command and control procedures, with emphasis on the transition from solely conventional operations to chemical, nuclear, and conventional operations during a time of war.
"Able Archer 83" was a five-day North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) command post exercise starting on 7 November 1983, that spanned Western Europe, centered on the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) Headquarters in Casteau, north of the city of Mons. Able Archer's exercises simulated a period of conflict escalation, culminating in a coordinated nuclear attack.[29]
The realistic nature of the 1983 exercise, coupled with deteriorating relations between the United States and the Soviet Union and the anticipated arrival of strategic Pershing II nuclear missiles in Europe, led some members of the Soviet Politburo and military to believe that Able Archer 83 was a ruse of war, obscuring preparations for a genuine nuclear first strike.[29][30][31][32] In response, the Soviets readied their nuclear forces and placed air units in East Germany and Poland on alert.[33][34]This "1983 war scare" is considered by many historians to be the closest the world has come to nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.[35] The threat of nuclear war ended with the conclusion of the exercise on 11 November, however.[36][37]
The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was proposed by U.S. President Ronald Reagan on 23 March 1983.[38] In the latter part of his presidency, numerous factors (which included watching the 1983 movie The Day After and hearing through a Soviet defector that Able Archer 83 almost triggered a Russian first strike) had turned Ronald Reagan against the concept of winnable nuclear war, and he began to see nuclear weapons as more of a "wild card" than a strategic deterrent. Although he later believed in disarmament treaties slowly blunting the danger of nuclear weaponry by reducing their number and alert status, he also believed a technological solution might allow incoming ICBMs to be shot down, thus making the US invulnerable to a first strike. However, the USSR saw the SDI concept as a major threat, since a unilateral deployment of the system would allow the US to launch a massive first strike on the Soviet Union without any fear of retaliation.
The SDI concept was to use ground-based and space-based systems to protect the United States from attack by strategic nuclear ballistic missiles. The initiative focused on strategic defense rather than the prior strategic offense doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD). The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) was set up in 1984 within the United States Department of Defense to oversee the Strategic Defense Initiative.
NATO operational plans for a Third World War have involved NATO allies who do not have their nuclear weapons, using nuclear weapons supplied by the United States as part of a general NATO war plan, under the direction of NATO's Supreme Allied Commander.
Of the three nuclear powers in NATO (France, the United Kingdom, and the United States) only the United States has provided weapons for nuclear sharing. As of November2009[update], Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey are still hosting US nuclear weapons as part of NATO's nuclear sharing policy.[39][40] Canada hosted weapons until 1984,[41] and Greece until 2001.[39][42] The United Kingdom also received US tactical nuclear weapons such as nuclear artillery and Lance missiles until 1992, despite the UK being a nuclear weapons state in its own right; these were mainly deployed in Germany.
In peacetime, the nuclear weapons stored in non-nuclear countries are guarded by US airmen though previously some artillery and missile systems were guarded by US Army soldiers; the codes required for detonating them are under American control. In case of war, the weapons are to be mounted on the participating countries' warplanes. The weapons are under custody and control of USAF Munitions Support Squadrons co-located on NATO main operating bases that work together with the host nation forces.[39]
As of 2005[update], 180 tactical B61 nuclear bombs of the 480 US nuclear weapons believed to be deployed in Europe fall under the nuclear sharing arrangement.[43] The weapons are stored within a vault in hardened aircraft shelters, using the USAF WS3 Weapon Storage and Security System. The delivery warplanes used are F-16 Fighting Falcons and Panavia Tornados.[44]
With the initiation of the Cold War arms race in the 1950s, an apocalyptic war between the United States and the Soviet Union became a real possibility. During the Cold War era (19471991), several military events have been described as having come close to potentially triggering World WarIII.
The Korean War was a war between two coalitions fighting for control over the Korean Peninsula: a communist coalition including North Korea, China and the Soviet Union, and a capitalist coalition including South Korea, the United States and the United Nations Command. Many then believed that the conflict was likely to soon escalate into a full-scale war between the three countries, the US, the USSR, and China. CBS News war correspondent Bill Downs wrote in 1951, "To my mind, the answer is: Yes, Korea is the beginning of World WarIII. The brilliant landings at Inchon and the cooperative efforts of the American armed forces with the United Nations Allies have won us a victory in Korea. But this is only the first battle in a major international struggle which now is engulfing the Far East and the entire world."[45] Downs afterwards repeated this belief on ABC Evening News while reporting on the USS Pueblo incident in 1968.[46] Secretary of State Dean Acheson later acknowledged that the Truman administration was concerned about the escalation of the conflict and that General Douglas MacArthur warned him that a U.S.-led intervention risked a Soviet response.[47]
The Berlin Crisis of 1961 was a political-military confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union at Checkpoint Charlie with both several American and Soviet/East German tanks and troops at the stand-off at each other only 100 yards on either side of the checkpoint. The reason behind the confrontation was about the occupational status of the German capital city, Berlin, and of postWorld War II Germany. The Berlin Crisis started when the USSR launched an ultimatum demanding the withdrawal of all armed forces from Berlin, including the Western armed forces in West Berlin. The crisis culminated in the city's de facto partition with the East German erection of the Berlin Wall. This stand-off ended peacefully on 28 October following a USSoviet understanding to withdraw tanks and reduce tensions.
The Cuban Missile Crisis, a confrontation on the stationing of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba in response to the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion, is considered as having been the closest to a nuclear exchange, which could have precipitated a third World War.[48] The crisis peaked on 27 October, with three separate major incidents occurring on the same day:
Despite what many believe to be the closest the world has come to a nuclear conflict, throughout the entire standoff, the Doomsday Clock, which is run by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to estimate how close the end of the world, or doomsday, is, with midnight being the apocalypse, stayed at a relatively stable seven minutes to midnight. This has been explained as being due to the brevity of the crisis since the clock monitored more long-term factors such as the leadership of countries, conflicts, wars, and political upheavals, as well as societies' reactions to said factors.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists now credits the political developments resulting from the Cuban Missile Crisis with having enhanced global stability. The Bulletin posits that future crises and occasions that might otherwise escalate, were rendered more stable due to two major factors:
The Sino-Soviet border conflict was a seven-month undeclared military border war between the Soviet Union and China at the height of the Sino-Soviet split in 1969. The most serious of these border clashes, which brought the world's two largest communist states to the brink of war, occurred in March 1969 in the vicinity of Zhenbao (Damansky) Island on the Ussuri (Wusuli) River, near Manchuria.
The conflict resulted in a ceasefire, with a return to the status quo. Critics point out that the Chinese attack on Zhenbao was to deter any potential future Soviet invasions; that by killing some Soviets, China demonstrated that it could not be 'bullied'; and that Mao wanted to teach them 'a bitter lesson'.
China's relations with the USSR remained sour after the conflict, despite the border talks, which began in 1969 and continued inconclusively for a decade. Domestically, the threat of war caused by the border clashes inaugurated a new stage in the Cultural Revolution; that of China's thorough militarization. The 9th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, held in the aftermath of the Zhenbao Island incident, confirmed Defense Minister Lin Biao as Mao Zedong's heir apparent.
Following the events of 1969, the Soviet Union further increased its forces along the Sino-Soviet border, and in the Mongolian People's Republic.
The Yom Kippur War, also known as the Ramadan War, or October War, began with Arab victories. Israel successfully counterattacked. Tensions grew between the US (which supported Israel) and the Soviet Union (which sided with the Arab states). American and Soviet naval forces came close to firing upon each other in Mediterranean Sea. Admiral Daniel J. Murphy of the US Sixth Fleet reckoned the chances of the Soviet squadron attempting a first strike against his fleet at 40 percent. The Pentagon moved Defcon status from 4to3.[50] The superpowers had been pushed to the brink of war, but tensions eased with the ceasefire brought in under UNSC 339.[51][52]
The United States made emergency retaliation preparations after NORAD saw on-screen indications that a full-scale Soviet attack had been launched.[53] No attempt was made to use the "red telephone" hotline to clarify the situation with the USSR and it was not until early-warning radar systems confirmed no such launch had taken place that NORAD realized that a computer system test had caused the display errors. A senator inside the NORAD facility at the time described an atmosphere of absolute panic. A GAO investigation led to the construction of an off-site test facility to prevent similar mistakes.[54]
A false alarm occurred on the Soviet nuclear early warning system, showing the launch of American LGM-30 Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missiles from bases in the United States. A retaliatory attack was prevented by Stanislav Petrov, a Soviet Air Defence Forces officer, who realised the system had simply malfunctioned (which was borne out by later investigations).[55][56]
During Able Archer 83, a ten-day NATO exercise simulating a period of conflict escalation that culminated in a DEFCON 1 nuclear strike, some members of the Soviet Politburo and armed forces treated the events as a ruse of war concealing a genuine first strike. In response, the military prepared for a coordinated counter-attack by readying nuclear forces and placing air units stationed in the Warsaw Pact states of East Germany and Poland under high alert. However, the state of Soviet preparation for retaliation ceased upon completion of the Able Archer exercises.[29]
The Norwegian rocket incident was the first World WarIII close call to occur outside the Cold War. This incident occurred when Russia's Olenegorsk early warning station accidentally mistook the radar signature from a Black Brant XII research rocket (being jointly launched by Norwegian and US scientists from Andya Rocket Range), as appearing to be the radar signature of the launch of a Trident SLBM missile. In response, Russian President Boris Yeltsin was summoned and the Cheget nuclear briefcase was activated for the first and only time. However, the high command was soon able to determine that the rocket was not entering Russian airspace, and promptly aborted plans for combat readiness and retaliation. It was retrospectively determined that, while the rocket scientists had informed thirty states including Russia about the test launch, the information had not reached Russian radar technicians.[57][58]
On 12 June 1999, the day following the end of the Kosovo War, some 250 Russian peacekeepers occupied the Pristina International Airport ahead of the arrival of NATO troops and were to secure the arrival of reinforcements by air. American NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe General Wesley Clark ordered the use of force against the Russians.[59] Mike Jackson, a British Army general who contacted the Russians during the incident, refused to enforce Clark's orders, famously telling him "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you".[60] Captain James Blunt, the lead officer at the front of the NATO column in the direct armed stand-off against the Russians, received the "Destroy!" orders from Clark over the radio, but he followed Jackson's orders to encircle the airfield instead and later said in an interview that even without Jackson's intervention he would have refused to follow Clark's order.[61]
On 24 February 2022, Russia's president Vladimir Putin ordered a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, marking a major escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War, which began in 2014. The invasion has been described as the largest military conflict in Europe since World WarII.[62] The invasion received widespread international condemnation, including new sanctions imposed on Russia, which notably included Russia's ban from SWIFT and the closing of most Western airspace to Russian planes.[63] Moreover, both prior to and during the invasion, some of the 30 member states of NATO have been providing Ukraine with arms and other materiel support.[64][65] Throughout the invasion, several senior Russian politicians, including president Putin and foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, have made a number of statements widely seen as threatening the use of nuclear weapons,[66][67][68] while several officials from the United States and NATO, including US president Joe Biden and NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg, have made statements reaffirming NATO's response in the event that Russia attacks any NATO member state or uses nuclear weapons, while also reiterating the need to prevent the crisis from escalating into a potential third World War.[69][70][71][72] On 15 November, a missile struck the Polish village of Przewodw near the border with Ukraine, killing two people.[73][74][75] It was the first incident of a missile landing and exploding within NATO territory during the invasion.[76][77] Despite initial statements regarding a close call to a conflict between Russia and NATO,[78] the United States found that the missile was likely to have been an air defense missile fired by Ukrainian forces at an incoming Russian missile.[79]
Various experts, analysts, and others have described the crisis as a close call to a third World War,[80][81][82][83] while others have suggested the contrary.[84][85][86]
As Soviet-American relations grew tenser in the post-World WarII period, the fear that it could escalate into World WarIII was ever-present. A Gallup poll in December 1950 found that more than half of Americans considered World WarIII to have already started.[87]
In 2004, commentator Norman Podhoretz proposed that the Cold War, lasting from the surrender of the Axis Powers until the fall of the Berlin Wall, might rightly be called World WarIII. By Podhoretz's reckoning, "World WarIV" would be the global campaign against Islamofascism.[88][89]
Still, the majority of historians would seem to hold that World WarIII would necessarily have to be a worldwide "war in which large forces from many countries fought"[90] and a war that "involves most of the principal nations of the world".[91] The Cold War received its name from the lack of action taken from both sides. The lack of action was out of fear that a nuclear war would possibly destroy humanity.[92] In his book Secret Weapons of the Cold War, Bill Yenne explains that the military standoff that occurred between the two 'Superpowers', namely the United States and the Soviet Union, from the 1940s through to 1991, was only the Cold War, which ultimately helped to enable mankind to avert the possibility of an all-out nuclear confrontation, and that it certainly was not World WarIII.[93]
The "war on terror" that began with the September 11 attacks has been claimed by some to be World WarIII[94] or sometimes as World WarIV.[88] Others have disparaged such claims as "distorting American history". While there is general agreement amongst historians regarding the definitions and extent of the first two world wars, namely due to the unmistakable global scale of aggression and self-destruction of these two wars, a few have claimed that a "World War" might now no longer require such worldwide and large scale aggression and carnage. Still, such claims of a new "lower threshold of aggression", that might now be sufficient to qualify a war as a "World War" have not gained such widespread acceptance and support as the definitions of the first two world wars have received amongst historians.[95]
On 1 February 2015, Iraqi Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari declared that the war against the Islamic State was effectively "World WarIII", due to the Islamic State's aims for a worldwide caliphate, and its success in spreading the conflict to multiple countries outside of the Levant region.[96] In response to the November 2015 Paris attacks, King of Jordan Abdullah II stated "We are facing a Third World War [within Islam]".[97]
In his State of the Union Address on 12 January 2016, U.S. President Barack Obama warned that news reports granting ISIL the supposed ability to foment a third World War might be excessive and irresponsible, stating that "as we focus on destroying ISIL, over-the-top claims that this is World WarIII just play into their hands. Masses of fighters on the back of pickup trucks and twisted souls plotting in apartments or garages pose an enormous danger to civilians and must be stopped. But they do not threaten our national existence."[98]
In multiple recorded interviews under somewhat casual circumstances, comparing the conflagrations of World WarI andII to the ongoing lower-intensity wars of the 21st century, Pope Francis has said, "The world is at war because it has lost the peace", and "perhaps one can speak of a third war, one fought piecemeal".[99][100]
In 1949, after the unleashing of nuclear weaponry at the end of World WarII, physicist Albert Einstein suggested that any outcome of a possible World WarIII would be so dire as to revert mankind to the Stone Age. When asked by journalist Alfred Werner what types of weapons Einstein believed World WarIII might be fought with, Einstein warned, "I know not with what weapons World WarIII will be fought, but World WarIV will be fought with sticks and stones".[2][101]
A 1998 New England Journal of Medicine overview found that "Although many people believe that the threat of a nuclear attack largely disappeared with the end of the Cold War, there is considerable evidence to the contrary".[102] In particular, the United States Russia mutual detargeting agreement in 1994 was largely symbolic, and did not change the amount of time required to launch an attack. The most likely "accidental-attack" scenario was believed to be a retaliatory launch due to a false warning.[102] Historically, World WarI happened through an escalating crisis; World WarII happened through deliberate action. Both sides often assume their side will win a "short" fight; according to a 2014 poll, 3/4 of the public in China believes their military would win in a war with the U.S. Hypothesized flashpoints in the 2010s and the 2020s include the Russo-Ukrainian War, Chinese expansion into adjacent islands and seas,[4] and foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war. Other hypothesized risks are that a war involving or between Saudi Arabia and Iran, Israel and Iran, India and Pakistan, Ukraine and Russia, South Korea/United States and North Korea, or Taiwan and China could escalate via alliances or intervention into a war between "great powers" such as the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China, India, and Japan; or that a "rogue commander" under any nuclear power might launch an unauthorized strike that escalates into full war.[103]
According to a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Nature Food in August 2022, a full-scale nuclear war between the United States and Russia, releasing over 150 Tg of stratospheric soot, could kill more than 5 billion indirectly by starvation during a nuclear winter. More than 2 billion people could die of starvation from a smaller-scale (547Tg) nuclear war between India and Pakistan.[104][105]
Some scenarios involve risks due to upcoming changes from the known status quo. In the 1980s the Strategic Defense Initiative made an effort at nullifying the USSR's nuclear arsenal; some analysts believe the initiative was "destabilizing".[106][107] In his book Destined for War, Graham Allison views the global rivalry between the established power, the US, and the rising power, China, as an example of the Thucydides Trap. Allison states that historically, "12 of 16 past cases where a rising power has confronted a ruling power" have led to fighting.[108] In the first book devoted to the subject of military globalization, historian Max Ostrovsky argues that World War III is precluded due to unipolar distribution of power and unipolar alliance configuration, unless the Second American Civil War erupts and goes global. If we ever have World War III, he says, it would be USNORTHCOM fighting USPACOM and USEUCOM.[109] In January 2020, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists advanced its Doomsday Clock, citing among other factors a predicted destabilizing effect from upcoming hypersonic weapons.[110]
Emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, could hypothetically generate risk in the decades ahead. A 2018 RAND Corporation report has argued that AI and associated information technology "will have a large effect on nuclear-security issues in the next quarter century". A hypothetical future AI could provide a destabilizing ability to track "second-launch" launchers. Incorporating AI into decision support systems used to decide whether to launch, could also generate new risks, including the risk of an adversarial exploitation of such an AI's algorithms by a third party to trigger a launch recommendation.[111][112] A perception that some sort of emerging technology would lead to "world domination" might also be destabilizing, for example by leading to fear of a pre-emptive strike.[113]
Cyber warfare is the exploitation of technology by a nation-state or international organization to attack and destroy the opposing nation's information networks and computers. The damage can be caused by computer viruses or denial-of-service attacks (DoS). Cyberattacks are becoming increasingly common, threatening cybersecurity and making it a global priority.[114][115] There has been a proliferation of state-sponsored attacks. The trends of these attacks suggest the potential of a cyber World War III.[115] The world's leading militaries are developing cyber strategies, including ways to alter the enemy's command and control systems, early warning systems, logistics, and transportation.[115] The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has sparked concerns about a large-scale cyber attack, with Russia having previously launched cyberattacks to compromise organizations across Ukraine. Nearly 40 discrete attacks were launched by Russia which permanently destroyed files in hundreds of systems across dozens of organizations, with 40% aimed at critical infrastructure sectors in Ukraine.[116] Russia's use of cyberwarfare has turned the war into a large-scale "hybrid" war in Ukraine.[116]
Follow this link:
Nostradamus predicted WW3 in 2023 after correctly … – The US Sun
ASTROLOGOIST Nostradamus, who is said to have correctly foreseen the Ukraine war, apparently predicted a doomsday World War Three scenario for 2023.
The Frenchman, who has accurately predicted some major world events during the 16th century, believed that the current conflict in Eastern Europe could spark a great war.
4
4
According to the interpretation of his prophesies, he suggested the prospect of a third war world war.
Nostradamus wrote: "Seven months of the Great War, people dead of evil-doing. Rouen, Evreux shall not fall to the King."
Many of his followers believed that it could be refer to a global conflict following Vladimir Putins invasion of Ukraine on February 24.
But detailing the French city of Rouen, that sits 125 miles from the Calais, it would appear that not all places would be directly affected.
He also wrote of a "Celestial fire on the Royal edifice" with many interpreters believing it could refer to the "end of times" or the start of a new world order.
The theory comes amid a string of prophecies by the Frenchman, including when, where and how the world could dramatically end.
This year, he reportedly predicted a war in Europe despite it directly concerning the French capital of Paris, according to interpretations.
The section referring to this read: All around the great City / Will be soldiers lodged by fields and cities.
The astrologer died well over 450 years ago, but his prophecies have continued to amaze those who follow his work.
According to Yearly-Horoscope, more than 70 per cent of his 6,338prophecies have been fulfilled so far.
Many of his predictions, such as the rise to power of Adolf Hitler, World War II, the September 11 terrorist attack, the French Revolution and the development of the atomic bomb have been interpreted as being accurate.
4
Nostradamus also appeared to have predicted the start of the coronavirus pandemic of 2020, according to believers.
And three months into 2022, it is believed that Nostradamus predictions for the rest of the year could come to pass.
4
Read this article:
Nostradamus predicted WW3 in 2023 after correctly ... - The US Sun
Bitcoin due new ‘big rally’ as RSI copies 2018 bear market recovery – Cointelegraph
- Bitcoin due new 'big rally' as RSI copies 2018 bear market recovery  Cointelegraph
- First Mover Asia: Bitcoin Surges Past $23K Before Retreating  CoinDesk
- Bitcoin has climbed more than 10% this week, outperforming stocks  CNBC
Read the rest here:
Bitcoin due new 'big rally' as RSI copies 2018 bear market recovery - Cointelegraph
No, Binance Is Not Locked Out of the SWIFT Network, and Bitcoin Remains Largely Unfazed Even as Storm Clouds Gather – Wccftech
Redheads from 20 Countries Photographed to Show Their Natural Beauty
Kiev, Ukraine
Entertainment photographer Brian Dowling has photographed famous redheads like Julia Roberts, Julianne Moore, and Amy Adams, but his newest project focuses on the beauty of everyday female redheads. Dowling, an American photographer based in Berlin, spent three summers visiting 20 countries, where he shot portraits of more than 130 women with red hair.
His aim is to show the beauty and diversity in this rarest of hair colors. Just 2% of the population can claim this fiery hair color, which is caused by both parents having the recessive MC1R gene. Even with both parents carrying the gene, their offspring only have a 25% of being born with red hair.
Many associatered hair withScotland and Ireland, with 13% and 10% of the world's naturalredheads respectively, but Dowling's around the world jaunt proves they come from all nationalities. From dark auburn to golden copper, each woman proudly shows her locks, as well as other characteristics like the freckles and pale skin redheads are known for.
Dowling is pulling together his work into the art book,Redhead Beauty, which will be published after a successful Kickstarter campaign. The photographer notes that the photographs were shot without a makeup artist, special lighting, or excessive Photoshop. Dowling explains, I wanted it to be obvious these photos are real reflections of the model and for people to end their stereotypes of redheads.
Odessa, Ukraine
Brian Dowling: Website |Instagram | Kickstarterh/t: [Bored Panda]
Originally posted here:
Redheads from 20 Countries Photographed to Show Their Natural Beauty
67 Of The Most Legendary Redheads Of All Time | HuffPost Life
We definitely don't need an excuse to celebrate the awesomeness of red hair -- but just in case we do, today is the day. Nov. 5 is National Love Your Red Hair Day.
According to NationalDayCalendar.com, the holiday was created this year to "empower redheads to feel confident, look amazing and rock their beauty" and encourage people to share photos of their hair on social media using the hashtag #LoveYourRedHairDay. It's a noble cause -- and one that everyone can get behind, whether you have red hair or not.
Full disclosure: our love for gingers runs deep. Real-life redheads like Julianne Moore and Nicole Kidman make us want to run to the salon and go crimson. And we're head-over-heels for fictitious reds like Annie, The Little Mermaid and our all-time favorite, Anne Shirley aka "Anne of Green Gables."
Not only is their fiery hair swoon-worthy, but these folks have got the type of sass, success, and self-confidence to back up their standout looks. While they might not all be natural-born redheads, we still appreciate their ability to pull off a red-hot mane.
So, in celebration of National Love Your Red Hair Day we've rounded up 67 famous redheads that we absolutely adore. Check 'em out and let us know if we've missed anyone in the comments section below.
Julianne Moore
Lou Rocco via Getty Images
Prince Harry
WPA Pool via Getty Images
Grace Coddington
Jenny Anderson via Getty Images
Karen Elson
Venturelli via Getty Images
Nicole Kidman
C Flanigan via Getty Images
Shaun White
Araya Diaz via Getty Images
Kathy Griffin
Barry King via Getty Images
Christina Hendricks
Charley Gallay via Getty Images
Ron Howard
Jeffrey Mayer via Getty Images
Ann Margret
GAB Archive via Getty Images
Jesse Tyler Ferguson
Walter McBride via Getty Images
Maggie Rizer
Bryan Bedder via Getty Images
Angela Chase played by Claire Danes on "My So Called Life"
Mark Seliger via Getty Images
Shirley Manson
John Sciulli via Getty Images
Strawberry Shortcake
Courtesy
Jayma Mays
Gregg DeGuire via Getty Images
Damian Lewis
Joe Scarnici via Getty Images
Reba McEntire
Michael Buckner via Getty Images
Ellie Kemper
JB Lacroix via Getty Images
Michael Fassbender
George Pimentel via Getty Images
Raggedy Ann and Andy
Courtesy
Conan O'Brien
Tibrina Hobson via Getty Images
Isla Fisher
Jon Kopaloff via Getty Images
Chuck Norris
ROBYN BECK via Getty Images
Seth Green
JB Lacroix via Getty Images
Bryce Dallas Howard
Araya Diaz via Getty Images
Axl Rose
KMazur via Getty Images
Bella Thorne
Desiree Navarro via Getty Images
Dana Scully played by Gillian Anderson on "The X Files"
FOX via Getty Images
Debra Messing
D Dipasupil via Getty Images
Marg Helgenberger
Barry King via Getty Images
Marcia Cross
Allen Berezovsky via Getty Images
Kevin McKidd
Jason LaVeris via Getty Images
Lena Katina
Jerod Harris via Getty Images
Rose Leslie
Tristan Fewings via Getty Images
Blake Griffin
Angela Weiss via Getty Images
Felicity Merriman the American Girl doll
Courtesy
And we can't forgot our favorite resident redhead -- HuffPost executive food and lifestyle editor, Kristen Aiken.
Go here to see the original:
67 Of The Most Legendary Redheads Of All Time | HuffPost Life