List 3 differences between the american league and the national league in baseball?

Question ~ What's the difference between the American and National Baseball Leagues?

Answer ~ Major League Baseball is divided into two leagues with long and storied histories. See more sports pictures

Most people know that Major League Baseball is divided into two separate leagues: 1The American League and the National League. The National League, formed in 1876, is the older of the two leagues that make up the professional Major League Baseball organization in the United States and Canada. The main difference in the two is that the American League uses the designated hitter rule to replace pitchers during at-bats, and the National League does not.

Alexander Cartwright, an architect and sportsman in New York City, is widely recognized as the father of modern organized baseball. He was instrumental in founding the first organization devoted to playing baseball, the Knickerbocker Base Ball Club, in 1845. He wrote 20 rules about the field layout and how the game was played. The most important one was that players had to be tagged or forced out rather than having the ball thrown at them [source: Dickey]. Of course, the rules were modified as the game evolved, but Cartwright gave us the essence of baseball.

Sorry if it's a bit too long and the word with the D isn't supposed to be a bad word in there sorry about that xD This took me a while. (It's not the Bad word with a D btw ;-; just don't mind that.) I'll put the part you need in bold so you know where they are. I don't know the others like the other 2 differences. But I tried my best. I hope this helps my hands really hurt from typing ;-;

what are the statements? x

relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them. more precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter, but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied. relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent vantage point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be established.

relativism has been, in its various guises, both one of the most popular and most reviled philosophical doctrines of our time. defenders see it as a harbinger of tolerance and the only ethical and epistemic stance worthy of the open-minded and tolerant. detractors dismiss it for its alleged incoherence and uncritical intellectual permissiveness. debates about relativism permeate the whole spectrum of philosophical sub-disciplines. from ethics to epistemology, science to religion, political theory to ontology, theories of meaning and even logic, philosophy has felt the need to respond to this heady and seemingly subversive idea. discussions of relativism often also invoke considerations relevant to the very nature and methodology of philosophy and to the division between the so-called “analytic and continental” camps in philosophy. and yet, despite a long history of debate going back to plato and an increasingly large body of writing, it is still difficult to come to an agreed definition of what, at its core, relativism is, and what philosophical import it has. this entry attempts to provide a broad account of the many ways in which “relativism” has been defined, explained, defended and criticized.

explanation: