Bemaj Pharmacy

Prevention is better than cure – Matt Hancock’s speech to IANPHI We’re here to talk prevention. And if there’s one thing that everybody knows it’s: ‘prevention is better than cure’. When I was thinking about prevention I looked into where this comes from. I’m told it was Erasmus, the 16th century Dutch philosopher, who coined the insight.

• The irony was that Erasmus died suddenly from an attack of dysentery, which we now know is a wholly preventable condition.
• The other person who can lay claim was Benjamin Franklin, who said: ‘an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure’.
• And Franklin founded the first fire brigade in Philadelphia and made it one of the safest cities for fires in the world.

So prevention works. As the founding fathers knew.

1. Prevention saves lives and saves money.
2. Two of the biggest health successes of the 20th century had prevention at their core: vaccination and cutting smoking.
3. In the UK, both were achieved by careful and considered government intervention.
4. We didn’t outlaw cigarettes because blanket bans curtail personal freedoms and often have the opposite effect.
5. We encouraged better behaviour through informing the public and by stopping smoking in public places where it could affect the health of others.

We didn’t compel people to vaccinate against their will. We helped them see it was in their interests and everybody else’s too. Ultimately, at the heart of our public provision for healthcare there’s a social contract. A social contract at the heart of our NHS.

• We, the citizens, have a right to the healthcare we need, when we need it, free at the point of use.
• But, we have a responsibility to pay our taxes to fund it, and to use the health service carefully, with consideration for others, and to comply with medical advice to look after ourselves.
• Because the NHS is not just a service – it’s a shared stake in society.

Too much of the health debate in England has been about our rights: what we deserve, and what the NHS can deliver. And, of course, those rights are important. But, I think we need to pay more attention to our responsibilities, as well as our rights. Today, I want to talk about those responsibilities, and our task for the National Health Service to help empower people to take more care of their own health.

• I want to talk about how we need to focus more on prevention to transform our health and social care system, save money, eliminate waste and make the extra £20.5 billion we’re putting in go as far as it can.
• Because only with better prevention can our NHS be sustainable in the long term.
• Over just the last year, emergency admissions at A&E have increased by 6.6%.

This rate of growth of demand is simply unsustainable. But, of course, it’s not just about the finances. I want to talk about how preventing ill health can transform lives, and transform society for the better too. That might sound radical. It is intended to.

1. The government-wide plan we are publishing today sets out how we need a radical shift in how the NHS sees itself, from a hospital service for the ill, to a nationwide service to keep us healthy.
2. Where those who work on the front line of the NHS including the GPs, who are its bedrock, feel confident to remind people of their responsibilities too.
3. So first, let’s talk about those responsibilities.

At the core of my political philosophy is a belief that the state has a duty to protect the most vulnerable in society, and an equally firm belief that we must empower people to fulfil their potential to be the best they possibly can be. From the education they receive in school, to the freedom they have to achieve in work.

• And nowhere is this more true than with health.
• Given this duty, our starting point is to ask: what contributes to living longer in good health?
• The Prime Minister has set this question as part of the Ageing Grand Challenge – to seek 5 years’ longer healthy life expectancy by 2035.
• The best evidence points to a 4-factor breakdown.

Around a quarter of what leads to longer healthier life is acute care – or what goes on in hospitals. The second factor is genetics. The third factor is environmental – things like air quality that an individual can’t control.

1. And the final factor is what people do – the choices they make, the lifestyle they choose.
2. Different people put different proportions on these 4 factors: but suffice to say they’re all important.
3. Yet currently, we spend the overwhelming majority of the £115 billion NHS budget on acute care.
4. Last year, we spent just £11 billion on primary care where the bulk of prevention happens.
5. Yet the combination of prevention and predictive medicine have more than twice the impact on length of healthy life.
6. That isn’t just the difference between life and death, it’s the difference between spending the last 20 years of your life fit and active, or in a chronic condition.

So our focus must shift from treating single acute illnesses to promoting the health of the whole individual. And from prevention across the population as a whole to targeted, predictive prevention. So as the government is spending £20.5 billion more of taxpayers’ hard-earned cash over the next 5 years – the single, largest cash injection to the NHS ever – we must see the proportion of funding on primary and community care in the NHS rise.

And that is exactly what will happen in the long-term plan. But it isn’t just about the quantum of money. It’s also about reform. I want to see people taking greater personal responsibility for managing their own health. For looking after themselves better, so staying active and stopping smoking. Now, I want to address head on how we can do this without undermining people’s liberty.

Take alcohol. Like many people, I enjoy the odd glass of wine. I support the budget in which we froze duty on scotch and beer. I don’t believe in punishing the masses to target those who need help. Yet alcohol abuse puts a huge burden on the NHS. High-risk drinkers make up less than 5% of the population, but consume over a third of all alcohol.

• They’re more likely to end up in A&E.
• And drunk people are more likely to be responsible for abuse and violent attacks on NHS staff.
• I’ve seen it for myself.
• So we need action on alcohol that targets those who most need our support, without punishing those who don’t.
• Likewise, we know that smoking contributes to 4% of all hospital admissions in England each year.

And smoking costs the NHS around £2.5 billion each year. And this is despite the massive reduction in smoking over the past 30 years. For smoking, the next step towards a zero-smoking society is highly targeted anti-smoking interventions, especially in hospitals.

If someone is admitted as a heart patient, and we know that stopping smoking could save their life, then we will do everything we can to help them quit, as they do in Ottawa. This is a Canadian model I like the look of. I want to see bedside interventions in our hospitals so smokers who are patients are offered medication, behavioural support and follow-up checks when they go home.

And we need to fulfil our commitments to the obesity strategy, and set ambitious targets also on salt. Salt intake has fallen by 11% in under a decade, but if salt intake fell by a third it would prevent 8,000 premature deaths and save the NHS over £500 million annually.

So we are working on new solutions to tackle salt and will set out more details by Easter. Because focusing on the responsibilities of patients shouldn’t be about penalising people but about helping people to make better choices. How do we do that? How can we empower people to take more care of their own health? By giving people the knowledge, skills and confidence to take responsibility for their own health.

By using new digital technologies, to help people make informed decisions, with more access to primary and community care, and with more social prescribing, all aimed at stopping people from becoming patients in the first place. So the second thing I want to talk about is how we must focus more on prevention to transform our health and social care system to save money, eliminate waste and get the best return on our extra £20.5 billion.

1. This isn’t just about empowering people to take more personal responsibility.
2. It’s about reforming the system and harnessing new opportunities.
3. There are 2 new technologies in particular with the potential to change everything: the combination of artificial intelligence and genomics.
4. They promise the potential to unlock our genetic codes; and allow us to apply those codes to how we live our lives.

To predict which of us are susceptible to which illnesses, to diagnose those already ill, faster, and to develop new tailor-made treatments to bring people back to health. Together, they will transform medicine. We are finally now able to crack that genetic factor of our health.

• We can intervene earlier.
• Save money on unnecessary and invasive tests.
• Eliminate waste by prescribing the right medication or the right treatment the first time round.
• And save NHS resources for people who really need it.
• And this isn’t something that’s far off in the future.
• It’s already happening.
• The new NHS Genomic Medicine Service is expanding.

In Cambridge, we’re at the cusp of sequencing the 100,000th genome, and are now aiming to sequence 5 million so we can diagnose rare diseases, more quickly and with fewer painful tests for patients. The world-leading Moorfields Eye Hospital is working with the world-leading AI company Deepmind.

• Their AI system has made the correct diagnosis on over 50 different eye diseases with 94% accuracy – at least matching the best human experts.
• And that figure is only going to improve.
• These technologies, and other new digital services giving targeted health advice, are starting to transform global medicine.

As it has been with every wave of technology for the last 70 years, the NHS must be at the forefront, embracing these new technologies and shaping them as they evolve and improve. The NHS must go from being the world’s biggest buyer of fax machines to the tech pioneers of the future.

• From 1796 when Edward Jenner developed the first smallpox vaccine, to 1928 when Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin, to 1950 when Richard Doll proved the link between smoking and cancer.
• The next frontier of prevention is using the data at our disposal to predict who will be ill with what, and to get in there early.
• The Prime Minister has spoken with great eloquence about the power of artificial intelligence to save lives by spotting cancer earlier – and we must do that.
• But predictive prevention has a far broader application.

From diagnosing a susceptibility to dementia due to a vitamin deficiency, to motivating activity to tackle obesity, we can have better, more targeted interventions than ever before. Again, giving better results, and helping the NHS eliminate waste and save money.

Our aim is to prevent people becoming patients through personalised advice and intervention. Public Health England are leading the way on predictive prevention. They are bringing together a range of experts so we can scale up this pioneering work to a national level. Now, I’ve talked about acute care, genetics, and choices.

So let’s turn to the final factor in determining a healthy lifespan: the environment. And this is linked to my third and final point: how getting prevention right will transform society for the better. Right now, we tend to think of things in isolation.

1. Pollution is seen as an environmental problem.
2. Employment is something for the Treasury to worry about.
3. And housing is either a public good or a private investment.
4. But health can’t work in isolation.
5. Our health is affected by each and every one of those.
6. So a true focus on prevention means tackling the environmental factors that affect a person’s health too.

It means a new drive for clean air, building on the successes of recent years in cutting emissions. Secure employment, building on the record number of jobs available now. Higher quality housing. And it also means our GP surgeries, our hospitals, our care homes, our entire health and care system working more closely with local authorities, schools, businesses, charities and all the other parts that make up our communities.

• It means employers playing a bigger role in helping their staff stay healthy and to return to health after illness.
• And we can learn from the excellent work of our military here.
• Soldiers have an 85% return-to-work rate after a serious injury, and they obviously have some very serious injuries.
• The equivalent rate for civilians is only 35%.

The reason why the military is better at getting people back to work is because they are more engaged in their workers’ recovery at every stage of the process. Civilian employers must do the same. Employers have a responsibility to help improve the health of their staff and the nation.

1. To achieve this we need to strengthen the links between employers, their unwell staff, and the NHS.
2. That way, the challenge – for I never think of people as problems – doesn’t present itself at 3am at A&E.
3. Good health starts with the right pre-natal care, immunisation, nutritional support, fitness advice, minimising social media and mental health harms, secure employment, financial independence, safe housing, help with bad habits, friends and family to fight loneliness, careful and considered interventions at every stage of life into old age.
4. From cradle to grave, not just for the NHS, but for the whole of society.

Giving people responsibility for their own health. Empowering them to make the right decisions. The best help when they need help. That is what getting prevention right means. That is the potential of prevention. That is the promise that it offers: a healthier, happier future for us all. : Prevention is better than cure – Matt Hancock’s speech to IANPHI

Who said that saying prevention is better than cure?

Promotion of healthy lifestyles and the prevention of ill health is a fundamental principle behind public health and improving the public’s health. The phrase ‘prevention is better than cure’ is often attributed to the Dutch philosopher Desiderius Erasmus in around 1500.

1. It is now a fundamental principle of modern health care and inherent within health and social care strategies across the UK (See: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales ).
2. Prevention is about tackling the upstream causes of ill health, this in itself is not controversial.
3. The challenge is how it is paid for.

See: King’s Fund – Prevention is better than cure, except when it comes to paying for it, The results are not easily measured, because it is not easy to see where illness has not occurred. The UK has a rich history of focusing on prevention, from Edward Jenner’s smallpox vaccine in 1796 to John Snow using data analytics to determine the cause of the cholera outbreak in 1854.

• While there has been huge progress across many public health trends, life expectancy in the UK has stalled and in some parts of the UK, has even decreased.
• There are worrying trends in health inequalities, with an unprecedented reversal in life expectancy for some groups and stark inequalities between healthy life expectancy between the most and least deprived areas.

Increasing rates of alcohol and drugs-related deaths and hospitalisations, STIs, and obesity and a shift in the pattern of ill health towards multiple health conditions are also indicative of the need for action. Nursing is essentially about providing quality evidence-based care and support to individuals and populations to improve health and well-being throughout life.

In the past, public health has been seen as a niche specialty far removed from the typical image of nursing and only practiced by those with very specific qualifications. Nursing and midwifery staff are now increasingly recognised as instrumental in improving and supporting the public’s health at an individual, community and population level.

All nursing and midwifery staff are well placed to do this and need to embrace the contribution they can make to prevention. The ongoing challenge is having enough staff with the skills and time to make this essential contribution. The RCN have been campaigning for many years for a greater focus on prevention with adequate funding.

This is particularly pertinent in England, following the transfer of funding for public health to local authorities in 2013 and thereafter significant year on year cuts to local authority budgets and to the public health grant. The RCN welcomed the announcement in the recent 2019 spending review of a real terms increase to the public health grant, which we see as a step in the right direction.

However, indications are that the increase will likely fall short of the amount needed to offset the years of cuts and is not based on an assessment of population need. Improving public health and preventing ill health is about more than health services; and requires action to address the wider determinants of health, for example, education, transport and employment, which need to be addressed alongside health services in a more systematic way and with cross-government action and investment.

• The RCN’s commitment is for a properly funded cross-government prevention strategy with a nursing workforce who are able to deliver this.
• We are calling for a long term sustainable investment in public health and prevention, which is based on assessment of population need and an understanding of health inequalities.

The RCN has key alliances with a number of organisations to support lobbying on public health. For example we are members of the Alcohol Health Alliance who have recently called for £1 billion spent in tax to alcohol industry to be spent on funding 40,000 nurse vacancies.

Why it is said prevention is better than cure?

It is preferable to be protected from disease than to take its medication. When a disease affects the body, it will either directly or indirectly disrupt the functioning of body organs. The body may never recover.

What is the proverb of prevention is better than cure?

It is better to stop something bad from happening than it is to deal with it after it has happened.

Who invented the prevention paradox?

Historical perspectives on prevention paradox: When the population moves as a whole Rose’s Strategy of Preventive Medicine is critical reading for students and teachers in public health as well as practitioners of family and preventive medicine. In his classic, Geoffrey Rose outlines the prevention paradox that led to a discussion of two main preventive approaches to a disease, the individual- and population-based.

1. This commentary briefly provides historical perspectives and viewpoints on the message of fundamental importance that when the population moves as a whole, the relative differences are the characteristics not of individuals but of populations.
2. The “population as a whole” has been adopted in the lexicon of public health, enriched by Hippocrates’ treatise on air, water, and places; Durkheim’s collective consciousness; Pickering’s continuous unimodal distribution; and Keys’ charts of contrasting distributions.

These readings should provide the public health professionals with a critical understanding of prevention paradox when they tend to focus only on the expression of the root cause above ground but fail to at the roots beneath the ground. Keywords: Population, prevention, prevention paradox, public health In his landmark book titled Strategy of Preventive Medicine, Geoffrey Rose made a huge impact in the public health arena with his population-based strategy for prevention of disease.

His book has led to recognition of the “prevention paradox” where he demonstrated that prevention strategies offering large health benefits might realize fewer benefits at an “individual” level. In the chapter titled “Individuals and Populations,” he opined that variation at two different levels has major public health implications.

This he explained through variation among “individuals” and “between populations” along with a historical perspective on sick and healthy populations. This book was an impetus from his previous article on “sick individuals and sick population” in 1985.

Rose started out by discussing the individual variation where he states that humans do not conform to a uniform make-up in their overall structure but retain their distinctiveness that is common to the whole population. For example, some populations are built according to their environment but each individual in that population is different in terms of their personal attributes, such as their, physical make-up, intelligence, energy intake, and behavior.

Kalahari Bushmen and Eskimos are built according to different designs corresponding to the demands of their contrasting environments, but within themselves they differ much more. The survival value of short men versus tall men might not be the same, and this variability also suggests that there can be “equilibrium” for the population as a whole if not at an individual level.

• At the same time, there is a limit to the extent of variation in the “average” of the population.
• The variation at an individual level within a population might be inherent in genes, behavior, and social factors.
• The magnitude of this variation may or may not create a balance between the determinants of diversity and uniformity at genetic or social and behavioral level.

In essence, the variation at an individual level is determined by factors favouring or limiting genetic heterogeneity as well as social norms. On the flip side, determinants at a population level such as the “prevalence” or “incidence rate” are not necessarily the same as the determinants at an individual level.

1. This has, therefore, led to two main preventive approaches to a disease, the individual- and population-based.
2. The first, preventive strategy seeks to identify high-risk susceptible individuals and offer them some individual protection.
3. In contrast, the “population strategy” seeks to control the determinants of incidence in the population as a whole.

For example, thinking in terms of individuals who have hypertension is quite different from populations who have hypertension, and this begs not only different kinds of studies with different answers but also different preventive strategies. Rose communicated this message of fundamental importance for prevention by depicting Ancel Keys’ chart of contrasting distribution of cholesterol levels in Japan and Finland but not before rightly acknowledging George Pickering’s line of thought, that is, variation in personal characteristics within a population tends to form a “continuous unimodal distribution” with degree of skewness indicating the amount of abnormality such as when blood pressure is skewed toward higher levels.

While Pickering, like most physicians of the time, was interested in individual variation within a population, it was Keys, a biologist with interest in fish physiology, who carried a revolutionary message that the differences in serum cholesterol levels involve the population as a whole. This became a central driving force in public health prevention strategies later on, which shifted the focus from clinical investigations to population-based strategies for which Rose was an ardent advocate.

From the “Intersalt study,” Rose was able to re-emphasize that the distribution of “risk factors/exposures” in population shifts as a “whole” and that the differences seem to be the characteristics of the population and not individuals. Another important message by Rose from Keys’ chart was the definition of “abnormal” by a “normal” majority when observing variation between populations, for example, a high cholesterol in Japan might be called a low cholesterol in Finland.

The term “normal,” Rose observed, is usually confused with “healthy” rather than its connotation with “common.” Depending on the tradition or customs of the society, “common” can also be implied as “sick.” To make a favorable impact on risk factor/exposure distribution, preventive strategies can be geared toward changing the “majority” to define “normal” and “abnormal.” Rose also emphasized his point on the population as a whole based on Durkheimian philosophy that society is not only based on individual characteristics but also it is the expression of individual’s collective attributes within the societal norms that influence health.

Here, it is also interesting to note the assertion made by Hippocrates in the fifth-century BC that healthiness is characteristic of a population as a whole based on air, places, and water supply. This Hippocratic assertion laid dormant for a very long time until it was revived by David Émile Durkheim, a French sociologist, when he introduced terms such as “collective consciousness” that were later adopted in the lexicon of preventive medicine such as “population as a whole.” Rose’s contention, therefore, is that the goal of prevention strategies should be bigger gains in “healthier population.” The population-based strategy of Rose is indeed a major contribution for preventive medicine and public health.

This approach according to him can achieve big gains in health-related fields, especially public health. The “population strategy” has therefore influenced a lot of people in the higher echelons of policymaking. However, this approach is not without issues as has been pointed out by several critics and proponents of this approach.

One of the interesting aspects of this approach is the introduction of the term “prevention paradox” as well as the fact that large number of individuals with less exposure to a risk factor generally would create more cases in absolute terms than a small number of individuals with higher level of exposure.

Hence, the emphasis should be on the majority rather than the minority. This has lead to the idea of considering the whole population as an individual patient and concentrating on shifting the distribution curve toward a favorable direction. As a fallout of this strategy, prevention strategies such as screening and targeting “high-risk” individuals go into jeopardy.

The notion of “population strategy” in short is to bring in the whole population as “sick,” that is, only after labeling the population as sick, would one be interested in targeting it for prevention. The main contention of Rose is that there should be a demarcation between “causes of cases” at an individual level and the “causes of incidence of disease” at a population level.

However, the problem with this premise of thinking is the intimation that diseases do not have multiple causes which is not true. Diseases, in general, have multiple causes that are complex in nature involving several causal mechanisms at an individual level which is why it would be difficult for a public health person to direct all prevention strategies at the population level.

The population approach would be effective if we are to look at “modifiable causes” such as high salt intake and elevated systolic blood pressure. Since the prevalence of these exposures in the general population could be high, the justification of using a population approach is reasonable.

1. However, the role of causes acting at an individual level such as through viruses or bacteria cannot be ignored either.
2. Variations at an individual level also make the dynamics of health status at an individual level more complex.
3. Shifting of the distribution curve in favorable direction would require action at both levels and complementary approaches that could hasten the gains in public health.

For example, Frohlich and Potvin suggested the “vulnerable populations” approach as a complement to Rose’s population approach to mitigate the health disparities associated with the latter. However, they acknowledged it as less efficient regarding population health gains with a possibility of potential stigmatization.

There is an ethical dilemma with Rose’s prevention strategy as well, if one wants to achieve the broader objective of a healthier population at a bigger level. Prevention at an individual level provides autonomy to an individual to act on the advice that s/he sought, for example, from a primary care physician.

However, there is no such voluntary agreement at a population level. It would be the will of a higher agency that would impose moral values and principles to an unsuspecting stakeholder no matter how well-intentioned it might be. As per Charlton’s critique of Rose’s view, labeling the whole population as sick means that none of the individuals in the population is recognized as healthy.

This critique by Charlton is echoed by Skrabanek in his book entitled The Death of Humane Medicine that the vision of a sick population leads to medicalization of human life in “totality” and the concept of “health” falls prone to such an unlimited expanse that it becomes meaningless and instead becomes an empty political rhetoric rather.

Finally, the practice of preventive medicine necessitates an understanding of social factors as causes of ill health, in addition to the deeper understanding of the biology of the disease. However, it is important to note that the social factors are not the only causes of ill health, they are the complementary causes that are aided by disciplines that can determine the reliable cause of disease.

Public health professionals and preventive medicine experts sometimes focus on something that is only the “expression” of the root cause, meaning that they try to explain the existence of “tree” above the ground and fail to recognize the “root” system beneath the ground. Financial support and sponsorship Nil.

There are no conflicts of interest.1. Rose G. Strategy of Preventive Medicine. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1992.2. Rose G. Sick individuals and sick populations. Int J Epidemiol.1985; 14 :32–8.3. Keys A, Aravanis C, Blackburn HW, Van Buchem FS, Buzina R, Djordjević BD, et al.

Epidemiological studies related to coronary heart disease: Characteristics of men aged 40-59 in seven countries. Acta Med Scand Suppl.1966; 460 :1–392.4. Pickering GW. High blood pressure. Br Med J.1939; 1 :1–3.5. Pickering TG. Fundamental fault in hypertension. In: Sambhi MP, editor. Sir George Pickering’s Views on Hypertension.

Developments in Cardiovascular Medicine. Dordrecht. Vol.36. Springer; 1984. pp.19–23.6. Intersalt: An international study of electrolyte excretion and blood pressure. Results for 24 hour urinary sodium and potassium excretion. Intersalt Cooperative Research Group.

BMJ.1988; 297 :319–28.7. Schwartz S, Diez-Roux AV. Commentary: Causes of incidence and causes of cases – A Durkheimian perspective on Rose. Int J Epidemiol.2001; 30 :435–9.8. Charlton BG. A critique of Geoffrey Rose’s ‘population strategy’ for preventive medicine. J R Soc Med.1995; 88 :607–10.9. Swales JD.

The population paradox. J R Soc Med.1995; 88 :605–6.10. Frohlich KL, Potvin L. Transcending the known in public health practice: The inequality paradox: The population approach and vulnerable populations. Am J Public Health.2008; 98 :216–21.11. Skrabanek P.

What is the proverb of an ounce of prevention is better than cure?

Proverb: It is better to try to keep a bad thing from happening than it is to fix the bad thing once it has happened. I was raised on proverbs – all learned from my mother. As a young child I grew to remember them, if not always with full understanding.

• As an adult, the proverbs seemed to stay with me and over the years they have taken on more meaning.
• So how do proverbs – and this one particular – correspond to AP Tech Group’s blended solid concentrates and our proprietary technology for producing our solid form products? Well, how many times do we read about a wayward tank truck or rail car of some corrosive chemical crashing on our highways and spilling its contents into the watershed and countryside? Monthly I would guess, if not more often.

Now with the technology available by APTech Group, we can entirely eliminate those things from happening in our industry: Solids Can’t Spill! So getting back to the proverb, above: Using blended solid concentrates eliminates the “bad thing from happening” i.e.: spills during shipment.

What is the first known paradox?

Zeno’s Paradoxes – The first known paradoxes were given by the ancient Greek School of philosophy at Elea. Parmenides (c.515-c.450 B.C.E.) had held that motion is an illusion and that existence is one indivisible whole. His student and follower Zeno (490-430 B.C.E.), regarded by Aristotle as being the founder of dialectic, produced a number of paradoxes that purport to demonstrate that space, time, and especially motion are inherently contradictory, and thus cannot exist; this result was in support of the positions of Parmenides.

The millet seed. If a single millet seed is dropped to the ground, it does not make a sound. A bushel of millet seeds is merely an aggregate of many millet seeds, but if it is poured out onto the ground it seems to make a sound. It is a paradox that 10,000 dropped seeds should make a sound when a single dropped seed does not, since any number of multiplications of no sound (nothing, or zero) should not produce anything other than no sound (nothing, or zero).

Falsity of the premise “There are many things.” (a) “If there are many things, they must be both great and small; so small as to have no size, so great as to be infinite.” The next part of the argument employs the principle of division: Anything that has size can be divided into two things, each with size, so the process has no termination. (b) If there is a plurality, the finite things must be both finite and infinite in number. It must be finite because a plurality requires a finite and definite number; infinite because two or more things require boundaries or distinguishing marks, but here again a progression toward infinity arises when those things are broken into smaller things. (c) “If there are many things, they must be both like and unlike.” The argument for that claim is not given (From Hondereich, p.922).

Divisibility of a line. A line is either divisible or indivisible. If divisible, it is divisible into either a finite or an infinite number of parts, each of which either has or lacks magnitude. If finite but lacking magnitude, then one cannot reconstruct the line because any number of parts of zero magnitude is still zero. If it is an infinite number of parts of zero magnitude, the same result is yielded (because an infinite multiplication of zero is still zero). But if the line is divisible into an infinite number of parts of any magnitude, then this would constitute a much longer line than the original (because an infinite multiplication of any magnitude greater than zero yields an infinite magnitude). Thus, lines are not divisible.

The arrow. The flying arrow cannot really be flying because if it is moving, it must either be moving in a place where it is, or in a place where it is not. But if it is in the place that it is (i.e. a place exactly equal to its length), then it is at rest, and if it is moving into a place where it is not, this cannot be because it cannot be where it is not.

The relativity of time and motion.

Achilles and the tortoise. If the tortoise starts the race somewhere in front of Achilles and they both start at the same time, then Achilles, in an effort to overtake the tortoise, must first cover the distance between his starting point and the starting point of the tortoise, but in that time the tortoise will have moved forward. So Achilles must then cover that distance. But the tortoise will have moved on, and Achilles must cover that, and so on, with an infinite iteration of this necessity. Thus Achilles cannot catch the tortoise so long as the tortoise remains in motion.

The relativity of time and motion. Suppose there are three rows of runners, each with the same number of individuals. One row (A) is at rest, and the other two rows (B and C) are moving in opposite directions, according to this pattern: (Figure 1)

They will then reach this position: (Figure 2) But to move from the situation depicted in Figure 1 to that of Figure 2, B’s will have passed twice as many Cs as As. Hence, it would take the Bs twice as long to pass the individual As as the individual Cs.

So it seems that double the time is equal to half the time. (Reese, p.852) Zeno’s paradoxes have fascinated and tormented philosophers, philosophy students, and others to this day because it is seems, intuitively, that there is a mistake in each, but figuring out what the mistake is may be difficult or even impossible, at least for some time.

Since each of them, except possibly the one on the relativity of time and motion, really does have a mistake in it, they are only apparent paradoxes and not true ones. But it was not until certain mathematical developments of the nineteenth century that a definitive solution to some of them was found.

What is paradox theory?

Paradox theory refers to a particular approach to oppositions which sets forth ‘ a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing depicts how cyclical responses to paradoxical tensions enable sustainability and

What is the paradox philosophy?

A paradox is generally a puzzling conclusion we seem to be driven towards by our reasoning, but which is highly counterintuitive, nevertheless. There are, among these, a large variety of paradoxes of a logical nature which have teased even professional logicians, in some cases for several millennia.

But what are now sometimes isolated as “the logical paradoxes” are a much less heterogeneous collection: they are a group of antinomies centered on the notion of self-reference, some of which were known in Classical times, but most of which became particularly prominent in the early decades of last century.

Quine distinguished amongst paradoxes such antinomies. He did so by first isolating the “veridical” and “falsidical” paradoxes, which, although puzzling riddles, turned out to be plainly true, or plainly false, after some inspection. In addition, however, there were paradoxes which “produce a self-contradiction by accepted ways of reasoning,” and which, Quine thought, established “that some tacit and trusted pattern of reasoning must be made explicit, and henceforward be avoided or revised.” We will first look, more broadly, and historically, at several of the main conundrums of a logical nature which have proved difficult, some since antiquity, before concentrating later on the more recent troubles with paradoxes of self-reference.

Why is Benjamin Franklin so special?

Benjamin Franklin Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790), printer, inventor, scientist, and statesman, occupies a distinguished place in U.S. history. He not only played an influential role in the Revolutionary War era and the fight for American independence, but also helped to shape the U.S.

What was Dr Franklin accused of?

“Everything just came unraveled” The Dentist’s Wife speaks out This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated. TULSA, Okla. – They called him a monster; a wealthy Tulsa dentist the state labeled a “master manipulator” when they charged him with the first degree murder of a young child.

Dr. Bert Franklin was entangled in a love affair with a patient, snared by a clip of home surveillance footage. The evidence against him included a video clip they called a smoking gun; evidence of abuse. “He is innocent of these charges,” said Dr. Franklin’s defense attorney Scott Adams. “He’s always said he’s innocent of these charges, and I believe him.” The jury did not.

Dr. Bert Franklin got two life sentences with no possibility for parole.

• “It’s hard to fathom a man who could do what this man did to this little baby, and then coldly and calculatedly plan to solicit the murder of this child’s mother,” said lead prosecutor Gayland Geiger.
• Meanwhile, Shavonne Franklin sat through the entire trial and found something else: reasonable doubt.
• She does not believe the video footage shows her husband hurting a child.
• She does not believe she fell in love with a cold-blooded killer.

“I know beyond a shadow of a doubt Bert didn’t do that,” Shavonne Franklin said. “Bert didn’t hurt him. He was at the wrong place at the wrong time.” Bert and Shavonne met at Oral Roberts University. They married right after college and started a family.

• I would fall in love with him all over again each time we would have a baby,” Shavonne remembers.
• He was almost more excited than I was.
• Every time I found out I was pregnant he was just ecstatic.” Theirs was a picture perfect family, shattered the day his secrets spilled out. Dr.
• Bert Franklin’s double life came undone before his very eyes.

“Everything just kind of came out and came unraveled,” Shavonne said. “I don’t even remember much now about that time.”

1. The summer of 2016, Oklahoma City Police started investigating the death of 19-month-old Lincoln Lewis.
2. Lewis was the son of Bert’s secret girlfriend.
3. Authorities zeroed in on her lover, Bert Franklin.
4. At the time, Shavonne and her family had no idea about any of it.
5. She had no idea the husband and father they adored had been dating another woman for a year and spending weekends with the woman’s family for months.

“The affair, he made a mistake. I’m not going to ever deny that,” said Shavonne. “It hurt. But, that’s between him and myself and God and that’s my choice.”

• When faced with the painful shards of her broken heart Shavonne franklin made a choice.
• She chose to try and keep her family together no matter what.
• Those vows she’d pledged before God 14 years before, for better or for worse, were now being put to the ultimate test.
• She continues to stand by her husband.

“This fight isn’t in vain. God’s always been with me and with the family; with Bert. People have mocked that, but that’s ok,” Shavonne said. “Ultimately, we know where our faith lies and our hope lies and our trust lies.”

1. In Tulsa, Bert’s family, Shavonne and their four girls continue to pray for a miracle.
2. At trial, they had hoped the jury would see their father as they did.
3. They now seek divine intervention.

“I mean, I am still hanging on to I know who he is,” said the oldest daughter Kalyn, who is 15 years old. “I know one day he will come walking through those doors. I have no doubt.” “He’s missing us and we’re missing him but he will come home and we can re-start our family together, and the truth will come out,” said 12-year-old Taylor Franklin.

• Their eight-year-old daughter, Ella, writes a prayer card for her father every week at church.
• I still have hope that we’ll be a family again,” said Shavonne.
• I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having hope.” Bert Franklin’s victim, Lincoln Lewis would have turned four years old this year.
• His mother launched a YouTube channel earlier this year to raise awareness about child abuse.

She has also appeared on Dr. Phil. She is speaking out about the case and her loss. Shavonne Franklin said she agreed to an interview with News 4 because her family has lost as well. News 4 reached out to Lincoln Lewis’ mother, Roxanne Randall. She did not respond to our request.

Which of the 13 virtues did Franklin struggle with the most?

Summary – Part Two opens with letters to Franklin. The first letter is from a Mr. Abel James and it comments on Part One of the Autobiography and the outline of the rest of the work—both of which Franklin had shown James asking for his opinion. Written in 1782, James’s letter encourages Franklin to complete the work.

The second letter is from Benjamin Vaughn, and it is dated January, 1783. Having seen the outline and parts of the book itself, Vaughn encourages Franklin to continue with the book because the book may be of great use to others who are looking for a model by which they can better their lives once it is published.

Vaughan also argues that the publication of the Autobiography will prove to the English that the Americans are a great people of virtue and industry, and America is a country which has great economic mobility. Franklin, who is now writing while in France where he was serving as a diplomat immediately after the Revolution, returns to some of his old accomplishments.

He mentioned that the library he started in 1730 was a big success. He says that he had bought books from England because there were no good bookstores in Philadelphia at the time. His library, he writes, helped “reading become fashionable. people become better acquainted with books.” Nevertheless, perhaps fearing resentment from others because of his tremendous success and fame, Franklin writes that he did not take too much credit for the library when it first started.

As the library is started, Franklin himself is just starting a new family with the former Miss Read, his new wife. He uses the library for his own mental development, and meanwhile he manages to support his family based on “industry and frugality.” He saves money wherever possible.

He remains a firm Deist, but he mentions that he respects all religions and dislikes religious strife. He does not ever attend “public worship,” and he finds fault in some Christian theological interpretations of morality. Continually obsessed with self-betterment, Franklin consents “to the bold and arduous project of arriving at Moral Perfection.” He creates a list of 13 virtues that are, in order: 1.

Temperance 2. Silence 3. Order 4. Resolution 5. Frugality 6. Industry 7. Sincerity 8. Justice 9. Moderation 10. Cleanliness 11. Tranquility 12. Chastity 13. Humility Franklin sets about creating a weekly plan by which he will develop one virtue per week, eventually perfecting them all.

1. As he focuses on one virtue per week, he keeps track of his successes and failures in a small book he keeps with him at all times.
2. He also develops a daily planner to help him acquire Order.
3. Franklin finds many faults at first, but over time he manages to correct most of them.
4. He finds that Order is the most difficult for him to acquire, partly because Franklin’s good memory makes Order not as necessary.

However, Franklin ends up being pleased with his inability to perfect all his virtues, deciding, “a speckled axe is best.A benevolent man should allow a few faults in himself, to keep his friends in countenance.” Franklin writes that although he never became perfect, he did become happier.

1. He writes about his hope that all his descendants who read his Autobiography will derive the same enjoyment and benefits from acquiring these virtues.
2. Franklin adds that the list of virtues are likely to appeal to people of all religions.
3. They are not geared specifically at any one particular faith because Franklin stresses their utilitarian benefits rather than their moral benefits.

He mentions that Humility was added last when his friends started to complain that he was too arrogant. To make himself seem more humble, he used such phrases as “I conceive” or “I apprehend” rather than “certainly, undoubtedly,” etc. Franklin writes that he afterwards started enjoying conversations more.

What is the proverb of an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure?

Proverb: It is better to try to keep a bad thing from happening than it is to fix the bad thing once it has happened. I was raised on proverbs – all learned from my mother. As a young child I grew to remember them, if not always with full understanding.

• As an adult, the proverbs seemed to stay with me and over the years they have taken on more meaning.
• So how do proverbs – and this one particular – correspond to AP Tech Group’s blended solid concentrates and our proprietary technology for producing our solid form products? Well, how many times do we read about a wayward tank truck or rail car of some corrosive chemical crashing on our highways and spilling its contents into the watershed and countryside? Monthly I would guess, if not more often.

Now with the technology available by APTech Group, we can entirely eliminate those things from happening in our industry: Solids Can’t Spill! So getting back to the proverb, above: Using blended solid concentrates eliminates the “bad thing from happening” i.e.: spills during shipment.