Sunday, July 6, 2008

Lacanilao, F. (2008). 50 years of DOST, 30 years of NAST -- Bakit tayo kulelat??

(This article was written by Dr. Flor Lacanilao, noted marine biologist, and a faculty member of the prestigious Marine Science Institute of UP Diliman. This article was sent by newsletter to members of a mailing list, which includes me.)

Next week DOST and NAST will again celebrate S&T week. DOST is also celebrating its 50th year and the NAST is on its 30th Annual Scientific Meeting. But through these years, as I have shown in previous articles, no less than 10 (now 12) Asian countries have left us behind in science & technology and national progress. Our S&T performance has hardly improved in 1981 to 1995; and this poor performance would have continued if not for the publication increase from UP in the last 10 years.

The basic cause of our failure to move forward is poor evaluation of research performance (recall the essentials of the development -- research, science, and technology, where research is the basic component). DOST and NAST continue to rely on peer review or personal judgment, when we don't have enough experts in science and social sciences, or scientists, to do the job. Most of those evaluating such performance in the country lack research publications as sole or lead author in peer-reviewed international journals (simply defined as those covered in Science Citation Index or Social Science Citation Index).

For example, "Silliman U Wins CHEd Best Research Award" is the title of a news report (Inquirer, 3 Feb 2007). It says, the evaluation committee is composed of the following: Emil Javier (President of NAST and National Chair of AGHAM), Saturnino Ocampo Jr (CHED commisioner), Filimon Uriarte Jr. (Academician, NAST), Fortunato de la Pena (DOST Usec), and Mario Lamberte (USAID).

Note that the evaluation is at the highest levels of our research enterprise, yet none of those in the panel is a scientist as defined above. How then do they evaluate research output?

Similarly, The DOST's "50 great men and women of science" selected in connection with its 50th Anniversary are mostly nonscientists (http://www.science.upd.edu.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=196&Itemid=1). How could it be possible that those in the panel simply didn't know what "men or women of science" mean when they made their own criteria of selection? Worse, could they have not known that they were making a mockery of the process? I wonder how our true scientists in the list feel being honored with such company.

I would like again to call on our scientists to do something about our problems in science, first by studying carefully their basic causes under Philippine context. (For example, is peer review, which is a common practice in developed countries, good for us?) Then they should know the consequences or symptoms of poor RP science to society. And this will lead them to our poor children still suffering from malnutrition or dying of hunger and disease.

What the above is saying is that it is one thing to be a scientist and another to be a literate scientist. As one physicist says, "How can we have science literacy without literate scientists?"

Perhaps it is appropriate to quote (while thinking of RP science) from Bruce Alberts, the new editor-in-chief of Science, "Why did I accept this position? In many ways I see it as an extension of my 12 years as president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS). . . . I soon became painfully aware of the many opportunities to spread science and scientific ways of thinking that are being missed--in our failure to teach science as inquiry to most students, in our overly narrow definition of scientific careers in universities, and in the inadequate recognition of the truly international nature of science" (Science 319:1307, 2008).

How is the Star Science column addressing these concerns? For example, are the articles of Ed Padlan on science literacy educating the public to be science literate? Are they helping train our graduate students to do research properly? Ed is a highly published scientist in international peer-reviewed journals.

Let me remind again our scientists, particularly the members of NAST, with the following: "Scientists who mute their voices to avoid irritating colleagues do not help the overall science program" (Dan Koshland, editor-in chief emeritus of Science). Who else are to blame for the presence on non-scientist members and officers of our national science academy?

This challenge is aimed at being able to say that our NAST will be like the US National Academy of Sciences where, "Membership in the NAS is a widely recognized sign of excellence in scientific research" (PNAS 102: 7405-7406, 2005). This is only the first step.

Then the NAST will be like the academy of sciences elsewhere in the world where, "such bodies serve to sustain excellence within the scientific community itself, to foster informed public discourse on science-related issues and to provide policy-makers with sound advice on these issues, encouraging rational decision-making" (Nature 450: 762, 2007. Editorial).

I think with such changes in the NAST, the DOST will be able to improve its ways of science administration. An important result of which is for scientific knowledge to provide the raw materials for generating technologies, for improving education, and rational decision-making. Then we can look forward to catching up with neighbor countries that have left us behind. One indicator will be fewer children dying of hunger and disease. Isn't this reason enough why you are doing or have done research?

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

On debate and conversation

(The following is my response to Gibby Gorres, who seems to think our school silences dissent. I give my nuanced agreement.)

Gibby, "discursive comatose"? I like the sound of that phrase!

I think that talking about UNITAS is a little like talking about the weather without a thermometer. What "thermometers" are we using? Camaraderie? Family? Granted; but how do you measure them? Beso beso absence of conflict no dissent? That's fine--for fairyland. But on earth, what? To me, UNITAS is not about the absence of conflict. Much less their prevention: I think the more competent people are in an institution the more conflict--or more precisely, disagreement--there SHOULD be. What good institutions have is a process of turning conflicts into productive activities. In institutions of inferior quality, where there are no such processes, silenced conflict gives rise to backbiting and dissent of the bad kind; loss of unity and corruption set in.

I equate the saving process with debate and conversation.

Debate and conversation are the public and private versions, respectively, of the act of "sifting opinion". Sifting opinion is not the same as "exchange of facts", "lectures", or "Q&A". People talking animatedly in the promenades or exchanging comments on blogs are not necessarily conversing (your blog is unique because it TRIES to promote conversation, although many comments sent to you show that few people catch on). Sifting happens when the parties put all their doctrines, tastes, and prejudices on the table for everyone to dissect, the purpose being for the parties to go away transformed.

We should enjoy the transformation; but what keeps us from benefiting are our lack of knowledge, poor language skills and mismanaged emotions.

You may ask, with 26 units a semester of liberal arts why don't people have facts at their fingertips? Some try to mask their poverty with pedantry. From my experience as a teacher, I think one of the roots of the problem is that many don't know how to read--or generally, many don't know how to LEARN. I think my diagnosis is reasonable because there is a correct way of reading that alone ensures that facts become part of oneself, not just part of one's memories. You and I know that the correct way is to read a minimum of 3 times: 1) to grasp the essential point; 2) to understand the logic; and 3) to critique the work as a source of knowledge. Most people read once and underline. No wonder.

How about language skills? Many people have a message, but we don't see it. Why such lack of articulate self-expression? Because we don't make the effort to speak straight. Our problem as Filipinos, the writer Paul Dumol once said, is not that we don't speak English well; it's because we don't speak Filipino well, either. In this university, if you speak straight English or Filipino you are considered elitist. No matter. In my classes, grammatical and punctuation errors--not to mention errors of logic and vocabulary--can mean a failing mark for the course. But I understand the problem, so I give students the chance to revise. However, I can not correct their papers in other subjects, their text messages, and their blogs. (There are exceptions of course: some students actually teach me things; they're the ones I respect the most.) We try to hide our lack of language by hiding behind "art" and "creativity". I've heard it said that our students are creative; to me it's not a good sign.

How about emotions? We know friends who get into an argument once and then refuse to talk to each other for the rest of their lives. No wonder we fear debate. You and I once got into a "shouting match" and enjoyed it. Why? Because we both followed rules that ensured courtesy and respect.

We use rules such as the Asian Parliamentary format to manage knowledge, language, and emotion. Conversation, too, has rules. I think that people today are simply not familiar with them. Thus, they come to fear what would otherwise be enjoyable and productive conflicts had these rules been known. You must consider that this "discursive comatose" is, in part, a problem of skill. I would not ascribe it to policy.

You understand these rules, that is why you can write so passionately about these things. Understand, however, that the Danube wasn't cleaned in a day. But at least you have a thermometer to propose to the people: the KNOWLEDGE OF THE RULES. This is UNITAS. This is where you must begin.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

The Spaceman and the Cowboy economies of Kenneth Boulding




Kenneth Boulding's famous 1966 paper The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth presented the idea of the Earth as a zone of finite resources. That is, as a spaceship. His ideas could be illustrated using a systems diagram (left), which provides a good introduction to modeling in general.

For this introduction I used the systems diagram of the Simulistics program (simulistics.com) and Odum and Odum's model for a renewable resource that appears in the book Modeling for All Scales (2000, Academic Press).

One can see why this model describes a population inside spaceship: the resource R is being supplied at a fixed rate but is being drained at a rate proportional to the size of the population. On the other hand, by removing the outflow from R one can turn this into a cowboy economy, that is, a land vast and rich where "seldom is heard a discouraging word".

The cowboy economy corresponds more to the way we think, but the above model is the way “reality” is. Boulding gave two recommendations how we can make our world more like the spaceman economy it should be.

First, lessen consumption rate. Consumption may be described as disposal minus recycling. Thus, one way to decrease consumption rate is to increase recycling. Another is to lessen supply (like toilet paper, when its supply is low disposal rate is low). And another is to increase prices.

Second, increase the stock of R. This may be brought about through technology, such as genetic engineering, which can draw the maximum from nature. Another is to simply plant more.

But what Boulding is really saying goes bigger than all that. He is asking no less than we change the way we study and do economics. He says that we should shift from an emphasis on production (measured by GDP and GNP) and instead shift to measures of stock. One way this can come about is to value intellectual creations, such as technology.

One insight from all this is that mathematics is a language. The diagram above is a model, and so is its mathematical formulation, written as a system of differential equations. Mathematics is a language that allows one to communicate with the computer. It is a motivation to understand that it is a language that allows us to communicate with some of the most powerful tools created by man, computers. It is a universal language, one that can be used to interrogate nature itself. "How are you, tree?" is not a question nature can answer, though it could answer this: "How is your oxygen production rate today?"

We just have to realize that like all languages, mathematics can not express the full reality of things. It remains useful to understand aspects of these realities, however.

On the Gaia hypothesis and how students are graded

The difference between a scientific and a non-scientific hypothesis is an important one to learn in a science class. A scientific hypothesis is one that is open to the possibility of being proved false. Referring to Lovelock’s The Gaia Hypothesis, Table II, column (C) labeled Earth Without Life is what makes the Gaia hypothesis scientific. It does this because it predicts the data we should obtain were the hypothesis false.

To be falsifiable does not mean that a hypothesis is actually false. Neither does it mean that a non-scientific hypothesis is not worthy of being studied.

Going on further, we discussed a very simple model of a system:



The logic of the model is that the earth as Gaia performs certain processes, notably the transfer of matter, energy, and information in a controlled manner. The A’s are the inputs, the B’s the outputs, and C is the control. Lovelock did not present data from A or C, but rather the output, from B. He compared the atmospheric components of Earth, Mars, and Venus, and showed that the B of earth is markedly different from those of the other planets.

What made the difference? Life.

Taking off from this example, we showed that processes are more difficult to study than their results. It is not easy to tell who is brilliant, but it is much easier to see who is productive. I explained that I graded students not on the basis of their intelligence or their study techniques, but on their output. I pointed out that talent is useless without output, and that good papers produced by students are useless unless published.

Do we know enough to lift all bans on GMO's?

(LR: Minerva Tabije, Abraham Guiyab, Grant Delfin, Stacey Gutierrez, Nino Runes, Joaquin Montesclaros)

21 May 2008. The debate was on whether knowledge today was sufficient to justify lifting all bans on genetically modified organisms.

Government (Tabije, Gutierrez, Delfin) argued that there have not been sufficient evidence to show that GMO’s are unsafe for human consumption. They further argued that the development of commercial products like Flavr Savr tomatoes, beta-carotene enhanced food, salt resistant plants, and a variety of medicines and vaccines provide solutions to the world’s food and health problems. GMO’s save lives.

Opposition (Guiyab, Runes, Montesclaros) argued that is not sufficient evidence about the long term risks of GMO’s, particularly the ecological risks. They argued that effects such as the loss of biodiversity, the evolution of insect resistance, and the spread of resistance genes, could take several generations to observe. Furthermore, if a serious adverse effect is observed, it will be impossible to recall the errant genes, for they would have spread through nature. GMO’s are a Pandora’s box.

This debate involved weighing the short term benefit of saving lives against the long term risk of ecological damage. The way to solve the dilemma is to ask whether the evidence now allows us to predict the long term risk. To assess this, it is necessary to know the details of how genetic modification is performed. These details differ somewhat from one organism to another; thus, the assessment should be made on a case-to-case basis.

As chief adjudicator, I felt that it was Government’s job to show data that 1) suggest there is little risk to health; and 2) suggest there is little ecological risk, which would include a discussion of the technology and its inherent flaws. The Government was not very clear on these.

On the other hand, the Opposition provided data on potential risks. They cited the case of the monarch butterfly, the larvae of which are killed when they ingest large amounts of genetically modified pollen (modified to contain an inserted insecticidal peptide). Although genes do spread in the environment, their argument that they do through the food chain is, however, inaccurate.

Nonetheless, we gave this to the Opposition because we did not think Government was able to satisfactorily rebut the ecological argument of the Opposition.

Are socialist measures the best way to protect the environment?

(LR: Mando Manikis, Inigo Taojo, Cheneil La Madrid, Kristeen Saguinsin, Denise Ramos, Carla Santos)

20 May 2008. The debate today was on whether the Philippine government should adopt socialist measures as the best way to protect the environment.

Government (La Madrid, Taojo, Santos) argued that the means for protecting the environment are too expensive for private companies to invest in; private enterprises are run by a profit motive that discourages such investment. They singled out the following industries as those which should be the object of government control: public transport, emissions testing, logging, healthcare, and education. They described, for example, that government control of public transport would result in all buses having environmental technology; besides, government could also dictate salaries and organization which would lessen bus lines and traffic, lessening pollution.

Opposition (Ramos, Saguinsin, Manikis) argued that such measures are unrealistic in the Philippine context. Where, they ask, would the government get the money for these environmental technologies? Taxes? They argued that the Philippine economy is not one that would raise the kind of money needed, even from high taxes.

We gave this to the Government mainly through defects in the Opposition’s strategy. They failed to underline their most important and relevant argument, namely, that the Government’s position was impracticable or unfeasible.

As a policy debate, Government was obliged to demonstrate need, benefits, and practicability. We think that need and benefits were demonstrated; Opposition tried to show that the Government’s position was not practicable, and they had a point.

However, this argument of the Opposition came near the end, and even then was not clearly articulated. Before they got to that, they first argued intensely that socialist measures violate fundamental rights, lead to corruption, and tend towards communism. They cited examples of inefficiently run government agencies like MWSS and GSIS, and the large investments of the private sector in corporate social responsibility; they cited Jollibee. The audience felt, however, that the Opposition failed to show what these arguments had to do with environmental protection. As to MWSS, GSIS, Meralco, and Jollibee, these are not even in the industries listed by the Government as those they wished to take over.

Government was, therefore, not refuted.The audience further noted that the Government was more able to articulate its position clearly and consistently, thanks to the Government team’s expertise in verbal expression. We underscore here the importance of mastering verbal expression, especially English, as a means of convincing others of the merits of one's ideas.

Does society corrupt man?

(LR: Christopher Siy, Carla Santos, Sabrina Tan, Pia Baria, Steph Sol, Abby Canlas)

19 May 2008. The debate today was on Rousseau's theory that society corrupts man.

Government (Tan, Santos, Siy) gave two major reasons why it does. The first was that the very idea of common good necessarily means that people will have to limit some their desires, but such desires never disappear. The result is that people find ways of “outwitting” others to get these desires, and this leads to corruption. The second reason is that society “defines” what is right and what is wrong. In effect, if there were no definitions, there would be no corruption.

Opposition (Canlas, Sol, Baria) argued that although society puts limits and makes definitions, it is man himself who decides on his actions. Therefore, the source of corruption is human decision. Error, which leads to corrupted decisions, comes from man’s wounded nature. In fact, they added, society exists in order to educate man in correct conduct. It certainly is not society’s intention to corrupt.

The audience gave this debate to the Government because of this argument: Both sides agreed that corruption was a vicious circle, with society corrupting man (government) and man corrupting society (opposition). Thus, the motion holds true; Government was not refuted.

In effect, Government used an argument very difficult to destroy. The only way Opposition could have gotten around this, I think, would have been to use an analogy. In a murder, we say that the gun killed the victim, but we do not imprison the gun. Opposition could have made the case that society is, like the gun, amoral. Then they could have used Government’s definition of corruption as “moral degradation” to argue that moral actions, and therefore corruption, can only arise from free decisions. An amoral object is amoral precisely because it does not make free decisions. Such objects may, indeed, cause evils, but they can not be said to cause corruption in the moral sense. Difficult, but playable.

Is economic growth the cause of all environmental crises?

(LR: Patricia Antonio, Kristopper Japlos, Jean Samsin, Bea Abalajon, Juan Ongchangco, Mariel Sison)

16 May 2008. The debate was on the question of whether economic growth was the cause of all environmental crises.

Government’s strategy was to argue based on a working definition. Government (Samsin, Japlos, and Antonio) defined an “environmental crisis” as a serious incident that caused death and injury to people. They argued that the presence of people was associated--even synonymous-- with economic growth. The presence of people in a place that experienced any form of disaster would, by definition, turn a “natural hazard”—a serious incident that may cause death and injury but not involving people--into an “environmental crisis” by the mere fact of involving people--who, of course, would be there because of economic growth.

Opposition (Abalajon, Sison, Ongchangco) did not contest the definition of environmental crisis, but they pointed out that environmental crises may be caused by natural disasters that had nothing to do with economic growth. Furthermore, they argued that actual environmental crises in the world were not caused by economic growth but by the failure to implement laws.

The audience gave this debate to Government for the following reasons.

First, the opposition failed to detect and then attack the Government’s argument that the mere fact of having people present was always the result of economic growth, and that it was the presence of people that turned a natural hazard into an environmental crisis. Government’s strategy, which was entirely based on a definition, was quite weak, but Opposition failed to capitalize. Furthermore, Opposition’s argument that weak implementation of laws was the problem rather than economic growth was contradicted by one of their own speakers who said that “economic imperatives overtook the implementation of these laws”, thereby saying that economic growth was an indirect cause of environmental crises.

Government’s strategy of using a definition to favor its side was very risky. Its success depended entirely on Opposition detecting the flaw. Fortunately for them, Opposition did not do this.

However, it was pointed out during deliberation that this definition of the Government was defective. Furthermore, the practice of making definitions that prove one’s point—especially if it ignored contrary positions—was not fair. It is precisely the function of debate to make such faults apparent.

Is order in nature evidence of intelligent design?


(LR: Jonathan Esteban, Quintin Abat, Ernest Sy, Gelo Yap, Charade Castro, Chris Schoof)

15 May 2008. The debate was on whether the interconnectedness found in nature was evidence of intelligent design, by which we understand that nature was designed by a Designer, who we do not necessarily identify with God.

Government (Castro, Sy, Abat) argued that the interconnectedness of living and non-living systems on earth implies purpose in all of the components that comprise the systems, of which food chains, biological structures, and geologic cycles are examples. By analogy, a structure such as a watch is so intricately structured and interconnected that the only explanation for how that structure came to be is that it should have been designed. Clearly the watch was made by an intelligent man. Similarly, when one observes such intricately balanced structures in nature, the intricacy is so complex that one must postulate the existence of an intelligence that designed those interrelations. The existence of a Creator is implied.

Opposition (Schoof, Esteban, Yap) argued that though complexity may have been designed, it is not evidence for it. Evolution, for example, provides an explanation to explain order. Thus, we need not attribute complexity to the action of an intelligent will that provides direction or purpose.

It was on the question of whether purpose implied intelligence that this whole debate seemed to rest.

The Government’s case is that interconnectedness itself implied purpose, and purpose implied intelligence. However, what seem to be purposeful arrangements in nature may simply be mental constructs. The Opposition pointed out that humans have the peculiar habit of creating these constructs to understand their world.

But, the fact that a purposeful relationship is a construct does not mean that it does not exist in reality. That, however, is just the point. If you can’t see what it really is, then how can you prove or disprove its very existence? What the actual purposes of things are, whether they are intelligently given purposes or not, is ultimately unfalsifiable, which makes the theory of intelligent design unscientific.

The theory is unscientific in another way.

Let’s take the example of the human eye, broached by the government. This structure is so complex that it is hard to imagine that it could have arisen by random mutations alone. But, opposition pointed out that even if the eye may be very complex to us, in the language of nature the eye might actually be something rather simple. In any case, it is not perfect.

But the absence of perfection is not proof that there is no intelligent designer, because he may be acting slowly. Neither is the trial and error of evolution proof of his inexistence, because the intelligent designer might choose to work by trial and error. Thus, because of his freedom, his existence can not be falsified. This unfalsifiability puts the theory of intelligent design outside of science.

This does not mean that there is no intelligent designer. There is one, as Government pointed out using the 5th proof of St. Thomas Aquinas for the existence of God. But his existence is demonstrated in philosophy and not in science.
Thus, both groups are correct. It just depends which field—science or philosophy—they are addressing.

This was a very difficult debate that saw both groups receiving high points from the audience.

Does order exist in nature or is it imposed by the mind?

(LR: Laurice Visco, Angelica Angeles, Nichole Arellano, Kenneth Torres, Nino Buendia, Matt Labra)

14 May 2008. The debate was on the question of whether there is truly order in the world, or whether order is only an imposition of the human mind.

Government (Angeles, Torres, Visco) argued that the real world may follow certain actions, but these are not orderly. It is our mind that tries to make sense of these actions by giving it names, like “eating”. The corresponding real event may simply be a random interaction, say between a rabbit and a carrot; the two meet and of them disappears. One evidence is that perceptions of people are not all the same.

Opposition argued that the mere fact of the world being intelligible is already evidence that there is some order in reality. What happens is that the order we come up with may be temporary, but it is still based on observation. Scientists don’t “impose” in the sense of doctoring nature. We systematize, but it is not all just a matter of perception. Perceptions, it is true, change, but this is not evidence of disorder in nature but rather a progressive approach towards increased understanding of the real.

We gave this debate to the opposition mainly because we felt that, technically, they were more articulate. I pointed out, however, that the strongest evidence in their favor was not something they elaborated on. It came from the audience: progress is itself evidence that there is some order in nature. Why, for instance, do we consider the fact that we have identified 114 elements in contrast to the medieval 4 as progress? Because it is an improvement. An improvement of what? Greater improvement in usefulness and in consistency. That means we are approximating the real more and more.

I reflected an insight in that we always view the world through some kind of filter between us and reality. The filter is concept, language, perception. What lies on the other side is probably much richer than what goes through the filter. Scientific progress is a question of changing the filter to make it more useful and consistent, but it seems that we might never reach the point where we will be able to see reality as it is through science alone.

Thus, there is something on the other side of the filter, but it is probably not science which provides the best means for us to get to know it. Science is limited and changing. To see the other side we will need the methods of another field: religion, philosophy, art.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Sir Galahad and the Witch


Once upon a time, King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, were galloping around Camelot when they were surrounded by a band of strange knights.

"Halt there, King Arthur. You are trespassing in the realm of King Olaff. I'm afraid we have to put you under arrest," said the leader of the band.

"You have reason, gallant knight. And you far outnumber us. As I do not wish to shed blood on such a matter, then we will just have to go with you," said King Arthur.

And so they were escorted to the castle of King Olaff.

"Good day, King Arthur. I see you have been galloping around again; too bad you trespassed. As per our agreement, you and your men will have to spend a week in jail," said the fat King Olaff, his fatty belly bouncing with every breath of amused movement.

"Hopefully not this time, good King Olaff. For I and my knights must prepare for Sir Percival's daughter who is coming of age in three days. Have you received the invitations?"

"As a matter of fact, I have, O King. But an agreement is an agreement. Nevertheless, since you are a gentleman, I will give you an option. Give me an answer to this riddle--and I'll give you a whole year to look for the answer. If you come back to me next year with the correct answer, you shall go. If not, you must spend time in my jail. You'll like the new bling blings I've added, by the way."

"Agreed, King Olaff. What is your riddle?"

"The riddle, O King, is this: What do women really want?"

Laughing inside, King Arthur says, "Are you certain you do not want a week? But, then, a year you say and a year it shall be. We shall return with the answer. In the meantime, I shall expect you at Camelot in three days?"

"You've given me a king's word, and I'll give you mine. What do women really want. Farewell!"

And off they went.

Almost a year later, King Arthur and his Knights were sitting around the Round Table. The mood was not quite right.

"We have 24 hours to find the answer to Olaffable's riddle. I do not wish to spend time in his jail, new interiors notwithstanding. How did I ever cram on this," sighed King Arthur.

"You were too busy on papers, presentations, group work. And some experts were not available for consultation. It's understandable," said Percival.

"Drop it," interjected Lancelot. "We've surveyed everyone who matters in this kingdom. We've gone to every barber, every fish seller, every mailman. Yet all gave unsatisfactory answers."

"OF COURSE!" exclaimed Gawain, making everybody jump. "There is still one more person we have not asked. A wicked old hag living in the very frontiers of Camelot."

"Then let's get to her, man!" says King Arthur.

"O King, it is not so easy," said Gawain. "For three reasons. First of all, she's evil incarnate."

"You don't know my mother-in-law," said King Arthur.

"She stinks."

"How bad?"

Gawain whispers something so disgusting to King Arthur's ear that he almost vomits.

"We'll bring a gallon of ammonia. Each." Then, to himself, "We'll probably have to throw in a flame thrower also." And speaking to Gawain, "What's the--(ewww!)--third?"

"She's very very ugly. As in."

"How ugly?"

"She looks like Kris Aquino, only thinner." (He was referring, of course, to Kris Aquino, King Arthur's plumber, whom historians say was actually a transvestite.)

"Fine. We're knights. We can do it. Let's not a minute waste! Ask the page to prepare the ammonia and the flame thrower ("Flame thrower?" whispered Lancelot.), get the horses ready, and off we go!"

So they made their way to the witch's domain.

It was clear they had arrived when rainforest abruptly gave way to shrub desert. Here was a dead bird, over there a dead rabbit, and over there a scabby dog gnawing at its own tail. And in the middle of all this wasteland, radiating evil 360 degrees, was a worn down cottage, its walls covered by dog hide in various places, its roof held in place by rubber tires; and in front, a sign that said "Forget the dog. Beware of--", the last word hidden by a knife impaling what oddly looked like a pig's heart dissected.

After bathing in ammonia, King Arthur ("I wonder what ek eks Olaffingstock added to his dungeon...") goes up to the cottage. "Hello. Anyone home?"

The door opens, and out comes the ugliest hag ever encountered in English literature. "Hus dis?" she says. "Wacha want?" She was eating a cob of corn. Through her nose.

"I'm King Arthur, and I need to ask you a question: What do women really want?"

The wicked witch continued to gnaw at her corn.

"Wellll?"

"Heh? Wana me t'answer dat? Shud'v sed so. Why d'you wana know?" Then to herself, "King, king, duzn't know t'speak clearly."

King Arthur explains.

Then to King Arthur she says, "Yeah, King Smells-Like-Piss, ahl answer dat. But I wana somethin' in payment."

"Agreed, witch. Whatever. What do you ask?"

"If wat ah say is right, you must give me one of your knights in marriage!"

At this, even the horses panicked, if not for the strong hands of their masters, who in deep despair looked at each other, and especially to their impulsive King.

After about two minutes of this, Sir Galahad spoke. "O King Arthur, it is clear that this knight should be me."

Everyone looked at him. King Arthur said, "I verily salute your courage; I would have said the same thing in your place. But why you, Sir Galahad?"

"I'm the only one who's not married yet." Galahad looked very very VERY forlorn.

A pause. Then King Arthur said, "Well, I thank you for this sacrifice. If ever a greater honor than a knight there was, I shall have rewarded you with it. (Whose f***** horse trampled on that flame thrower?!?)" Then to the witch, "You have our word for it, witch. Sir Galahad here will marry you if your answer is correct. Let's get on with it."

"Wat do women really want, King Arth-urea? Wat women really want is that you LET THEM BE."

Since there were was not enough time even for a thanksgiving speech, the galant men rushed to Olaff's realm.

"King Arthur, indeed. Ha ha! You truly are a man of your word!" said the fat and bouncy King Olaff.

"If you only knew."

"So, my friend and colleague, ha ha! What do women really want, eh?"

"What women really want, Olaff my boy? Huh!?! What women REALLY want?!? Is that we LET THEM BE!!! SH*T!!! I SWEAR, THIS AMMONIA--"

"That is correct," said King Olaff, a sudden look of reflection falling on his face.

Everyone shuts up. Then all shout, "HURRAH! HURRAH!" High fives and esoteric handshakes straight from a Snow White movie are exchanged. Everyone, that is, except Galahad.

This sudden realization overtakes King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.

"What is it, King Arthur," said the visibly impressed and now worried King Olaff.

"Nothing, Olaff. You're invited, out of courtesy, to a marriage feast in three days. That is, only if you want--"

"Of course I'll be there! Who is it? Galahad? Your only bachelor knight? And who's the lucky lady?"

"Just show up." And with this they all return to Camelot like an army in rout.

Majestic preparations were made. The witch was picked up and escorted to the palace. In three days, Camelot was awash with bling blings and ek eks and colors. Young ladies everywhere were crying.

During the procession, the heartthrob Sir Galahad was in his best shining armor. His fiancee the witch was in her pajamas, her louse-infested hair unkempt, her teeth all black and green, laughing loudly at her own jokes, finger in the nose, nagging, burping on one end, blasting gas on the other.

And Galahad, through all this, acted like the perfect gentleman, showing nothing but affection and honor towards his brand new wife.

As afternoon turned to evening, and as the last party guests bid goodbye (he had been trying to delay their departure for the last eighteen and a half hours), Sir Galahad began to steel himself to encounter his wife in her bedchamber.

Standing before her door, he knocked. No answer. He entered.

The witch had disappeared.

In her place was the most beautiful girl he had ever seen! She was dressed in satiny robes, her skin smooth and white, her hair long, black, silky smooth. Galahad just stood there, his face in shock.

Then she said, with the sweetest smile, "I was the witch, Sir Galahad. But since you acted so much as a gentleman, treating me with honor and respect, I have decided to show you my true self.

"But there's a catch. I can be like this only in the morning or only in the evening. When do you want me to be like this?"

Galahad the wise, Galahad the intelligent, remembering the most important lesson of the past few days, finally answers, "As you wish, my Lady."

Then there was a terrific explosion. When the smoke and thunder and lightning cleared, the girl from the Close Up-shampoo commercial had disappeared! In her place was a BLONDE babe a hundred times more beautiful than the first, in bluish satin robes, wearing breakable glass slippers.

She said, "Because you are not only a gentleman, but are also very wise, I have decided to be like this...all the time!"

And they lived happily together for the next eight or so years.

The moral of the story?

Your wife or your girlfriend might be evil, bitchy, stinky. But, remember, deep, deep down inside...

She's just a witch.

(I first heard this story some years ago from a friend, Erik Santos. Dunno where he got it. The illustration is from http://www.sbceo.k12.ca.us/~vms/carlton/page17.html.)

Debate on homosexuals in the military


Following a 3-yr tradition, my biology class debated 13 March 2008 whether homosexuals should be banned from serving in this country's military.

The government panel that defended the ban consisted of Johann Diaz, Dan Miranda, and Michael Bato. The opposition panel had Angelica Angeles, Kristina Castellano, and Jonas Gonzalez. (In the photo: LR, Kristina, Michael, Dan, Johann, Angelica, Jonas).

Government argued that homosexuals should be banned from serving in the military because of security risks. These risks are divided into two. First, the risk of loss of morale resulting from homosexual behavior among soldiers in the combat units (Government did not include staff and other administrative services, except for the medics, in the ban). Second, was the risk of spreading HIV through homosexual behavior and contact with open wounds.

As evidence, they presented a document on the military code of conduct from the US that expressly forbids immoral behavior. They also presented recent findings showing a physiological and neurological basis for saying that homosexuals were different. They also presented data on HIV prevalence in the military. Having thus suggested that the risky behavior of homosexuals was rooted in biology and were, therefore, givens, they argued that homosexuals should be banned from serving in military combat units as a prudential measure.

Attacking the biological argument, the Opposition pointed out that women--who also differ from men--are NOT banned from serving in combat units (Government failed to show similar biological studies that would suggest that homosexuals and women were similar in brain structure and other aspects of physiology.). Attacking the psychological argument, they pointed out that homosexuality is not considered a mental disease nor as something that prevents correct functioning in battle. They cited evidence of high ranking and highly respected military officials who eventually admitted to having been homosexuals all along. They also pointed out that there is no evidence that an army has ever lost a war BECAUSE some of its soldiers were homosexuals. As to phobias, including homophobia, these potential causes of loss of morale are controllable matters and can be cured.

As to the HIV argument, this was not attacked by the Opposition.

Opposition also argued that all persons who wished to serve should be given that opportunity and not be discriminated against.

Finally, Opposition argued that if we banned homosexuals from the military, such a ban would be a good excuse for anyone who for any reason refused to be drafted; large scale refusal in times of war would be bad for any army. Basing themselves on the government's definition of homosexuality as a "preference" for the same sex, they pointed out that the test for preference was to simply ask the person concerned. Thus, anyone who wanted an excuse just had to say he was homosexual, and he will be banned.

The audience found cause in favor of the Opposition, mainly because they found the physiological basis for homosexuality to be immaterial in functioning. They also thought that the definition of homosexuality as a "preference" does provide a good excuse to refuse service in the armed forces.

Technically, all the debaters were very good speakers. They were aggressive and knew how to sustain a controversy. The audience had a lively exchange with the debaters as well. In fact, the head adjudicator had to step in several times to control the exchanges. The Government appeared to have done more research, but the Opposition was not far behind. Furthermore, at the start of the debate, it appeared that the Opposition actually prepared for the contrary position, and had to switch right after the first speech of the Government.

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Ruthlessness in the University

I remember having read Peters and Waterman's bestseller "In Search of Excellence" in the late 80's. One point struck me for its simplicity: that good companies took care of their clients, their people, or their products. Furthermore, they specialized; which of these three they chose to emphasize depended on the company's choice and the nature of its business.

I remembered that book again about three days ago when a colleague of mine, a high ranking official in the university where I work, asked me what three areas I would emphasize if I wanted to have a good University. I said first ensure the high quality of the teachers; next, ensure the quality of the students; and finally, offer courses that are really useful.

Immediately I remembered Peters and Waterman: clients are the students; people are the staff; and products are the course offerings, generally speaking. The choice of emphasis, however, might be constrained by the idea a university has of itself.

One who has delved deeply into the subject was Cardinal Henry Newman. Discourse 6 of the Idea of a University is very instructive in this regard. Newman considers the University as a place for imparting knowledge. This is not simple 'downloading', but rather, knowledge that is acted upon by reason. The objective of the university might then be described as 'reasoned judgment'.

(to be continued)

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Red Riding Hood: Assassin


Once upon a time, there lived a girl named Little Red Riding Hood. She had a sick grandmother who lived in the middle of the forest. Everyday, she would carry a basket with food and visit her.

This day was just like any other…

“Grandmother, what big eyes you have,” said Little Red Riding Hood to the sick old woman.

“Cancer of the cornea, my child.”

Little Red examines her grandmother’s eyes. “Metastatic. This looks terminal.”

“I am going to die, my child. But before I do, there’s something I’d like to tell you.”

But as Little Red leans closer to her grandmother the better to hear her, an old man silently enters the room, creeps up just behind Little Red, and knocks her out cold with a stick. Red crumples to the floor. The old man approaches the grandmother.

“At last, Gwendolyn. For the last 50 years I’ve been looking for you in every possible country. I finally found you. Now I will kill you.”

“Prince…Prince Charming…is that you?”

“Of course, Gwen, how many Prince Charmings do you know?”

“I’m glad to hear that. But before you kill me, I would like to tell you the story. The real story about what happened between Snow White and me 50 years ago.”

“All right. Go ahead, Gwen.”

“Once upon a time, there lived a girl named Snow White…”

Flashback to 50 years ago.

A fence named Humpty Dumpty sits on a wall with assorted genuine watches on one hand. Then two hip-hop hoodlums in leather jackets and shades come along from behind.

“Yo, ‘bro. I feel hungry,” says the one they call Doc.

“Yeah, me too Grump boy. Hey, see what I see?” He looks hungrily at the fence. They walk up to him. “Yo, egghead!”

“Oh, hey, hey, hi guys,” says Humpty Dumpty with a wide grin and a nervous but extremely annoying obstreperous tone. He drops a watch.

“Heard business’ doin’ good. Got any dough for us, man?” Grumpy steps on the watch.

“Hey, man, I payin’ my dues, see? Paid it all yesterday. Da watch’s yours!”

“What watch?” Grumpy crushes it under his foot. “Dat wuz yesterday, Dumby. I mean, whattabout now?”

“Ain’t got no dough, man! C’mon! Serious! Think ahm lyin'? Why should I Doc, eh, Grump? Eh? Hey! Hey!”

Grumpy and Doc beat up Humpty Dumpty, and walk away with some cash, leaving the fence squirming on the ground.

“Let’s get somethin’ t’eat.”


Meanwhile, in a room, three goons are sitting quietly around a table playing poker. The one they call Sneezy is smoking a cigar; Bashful has his foot on the table and is studying his cards; and Happy is looking at his cards and very seriously. Sleepy sits by the door sleeping. Dopey is talking into his cell phone.

After a moment of this Impressionist scene, Sneezy quietly speaks to Happy. “You’re cheating.” If looks can kill…

“WHA? ME CHEETIN? YOU CHEATIN! YOU CHEATIN! ME NOT CHEATIN!”

“Hey, cool it Happy! Cool it. We’re all brothers here, man! Brothers forever!”

Grumpy and Doc enter the room, looking very full, breaking the already broken tension. High fives and esoteric handshakes are exchanged.

“Yo bro’s!,” says Grumpy. “You ain’t gonna believe this bloke Humpty Dumb Ass. Said he got no dough. But we fixed him up real good, man, you know.”

“Yeah, real good. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put dumb ass together again, that kind of good, you know,” rejoins Doc. He walks up behind Happy, looks at his cards, and slaps him on the shoulder, with a big smile and a raucous voice. “Hey, man, you cheatin’! HA HA HA!”

“WHA? ME CHEETIN??? YOU CHEATIN! YOU CHEATIN! ME NOT CHEATIN!”

With hardly anyone noticing it, Sneezy, expressionless, with his eyes fixed on the nervous and unlooking Happy, calmly stands, puts a hand into a breast pocket. And just as he draws out a gun…

“Hello boys!” Snow White enters the room.

Everybody stops and looks at the alluring and regal matriarch of the dreaded Magical Mafia. “Good afternoon, Snow!”

“Sit down, sit down. Put that back Sneezy darling, I’ll have a job for you in a moment. Boys, I have an important announcement to make.” She shoves Bashful aside and takes his place at the center of the table. Bashful immediately gets a mirror and holds it for Snow White as she edits her make-up.

“Well, I foresee the imminent demise of our maleficent Queen Gwen, who made it a crime to sell choco-ecstasy in grade schools all over the kingdom and forced us into the bubblegum business. Worst of all, she’s threatening to take Prince Charming from me. Does she think the Prince will ever believe that I’m the boss of the Magic Mafia?”

“You ARE the boss of the Magic Mafia! Yoohooo!” exclaim the goons.

“Well, she won’t if she’s dead, would she? And that’s exactly what I’m announcing: my plan to eliminate Gwen. And here’s how it goes.

“First thing tomorrow, she gets a letter from a Mr. Adada Muhammudu asking her to deposit $10,000.00 in an overseas account so she can receive $20 million from the heirs of a Mrs. Jewel Howard Taylor. She will immediately trash the letter knowing that it’s Nigerian mail fraud. The wastebasket is by the window, which faces another window across the street. In that other window will be a naked man doing calisthenics. (I’ve paid good money for this, you know.) At the exact right moment, boys, Gwen will see the man, then call the police to report him. But the police line is tapped, and the call will reach Sneezy darling over here, who, disguised as a policeman, will go up to that floor with an antitank missile disguised as a walkie-talkie, and then fire it straight into the Queen’s window across the street, eliminating her.

“That, my boys, is the plan.”

Everybody stands up and applauds.

Then, suddenly, Sleepy by the door collapses. Before anyone could react, so does Bashful. Then one of the goons shouts, “It’s, it’s…!”

“Gwendolyn.” A hooded figure in red enters the room. She clearly is a powerful person, like a Jedi. She removes the hood. “Hello, Snow White.”

“Get her boys,” says Snow White calmly.

The goons attack. One by one or in two’s, it does not matter. She is a taekwondo expert and quickly gets rid of them all. Only Snow White is left.

“Impressive, QUEEN Gwendolyn. For your age. May I ask, dear, how did you find out?” She calmly turns her back and takes out a make-up kit and continues doing her face.

“Timing, Snow. Your window man? Was practicing. Booked him yesterday for indecent exposure. Started singing. Took 3 minutes.”

Then the two women started speaking in a language that only women understand. We shall do our best to translate it.

SNOW: "Bakit ayaw nyo pa rin sa akin kahit sosyal at maganda ako? Dahil ba mas sweet ang iba?". (I like your hair, dear. Where did you have it made ba?)

GWEN: "Pilitin mo man na alisin ako sa buhay mo, babalik at babalik ako! (Ricky did it. I like your bag; think it’ll go well with that blouse I showed you three weeks ago?)

SNOW: "Alam kong sa tingin mo, masaya ako! Pero bakit kayo ganyan?! Sa tuwing wala na kayong masabi, ako na lang ang ginagamit nyo! Pagod na pagod na ako sa pagngiti!" (Of course naman. But Ricky??? My gosh, he ruined my bangs the last time. Ruined! But you know what? I heard he’s getting married.)

GWEN: "You can cry all you want, you could always blame me. You said, itwasn't fair, that you just want life to be better. But remember, it's all your fault! You stabbed me with a knife! But, I won’t kill you, Snow. Not for Charming."

SNOW: “Let’s finish it all here, Gwen.” Snow turns around; she has a gun in one hand. She fires. Gwen is hit.

“Arggh!” Gwen drops to the floor. As she falls wounded, an apple rolls out from her dress.

Snow White picks up the apple. “You never even thank me for making you happy, Gwen, then you throw me away just like that. I hate you for using me, for making my life full of shit!" Smiling maliciously at Gwen, she takes a bite.

And chokes.

She crumples to the ground. But before the lights go out she says, “Akh! You won’t get away Gwen. You think you poisoned me? I poisoned Charming! He’s going to hunt you, chase you, make you wish you were never…Akh Akh… born. He’ll kill you, Gwen…Akh.” And with this she falls dead.

Gwen, wounded, limps her way out of the room and disappears.

Just then a dashing figure of a Prince comes in.

“SNOW!” He runs to the dead mafiosa. “Check the pulse, check the pulse,” he says to himself. “DEAD! What happened Snow, what happened??? An apple. With her lipstick. Hmmm…I’m beginning to see a pattern here…POISON! This could only be the work of…of… let me see… let me see…QUEEN GWENDOLYN! Yes! That’s it: poison! QUEEN GWENDOLYN, I SWEAR, FOR AS LONG AS I LIVE, I WILL HUNT YOU, CHASE YOU, MAKE YOU WISH YOU WERE NEVER BORN!!!”

And with this he leaves.


We’re back in the sick room, the aging Gwendolyn on the bed with corneal cancer, and the aging Prince Charming with a gun pointed limply at the old woman, who is already unconscious. He speaks, “So, if she took the apple herself, then you didn’t kill her. Therefore, if she was the bad one, then you must be the good one. I’m beginning to see a pattern here…let me see…let me see…GWENDOLYN! I’M SO SOOOOORRY!!! PLEASE FORGIVE ME! YOU’RE THE ONE I REALLY LOVE! DON’T DIE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE! P--”

Little Red Riding Hood, who had been knocked out earlier, rises to her feet, unbeknownst to Prince Charming. She pulls out a gun with a silencer, walks up behind the Prince, calmly—professionally--points the gun to his nape. The cold, inevitable steel of the weapon makes him stop in mid-sentence.

Without a look of surprise and without turning, Prince Charming raises his head, and smiles. “Ahh, yes, The Little Red Riding Hood. Gwendolyn's best student. No, don’t speak. Yes, you might think I killed your grandmother today. That’s false. I killed her 50 years ago. She got rid of her royal life, disappeared into the criminal underworld, rather than give the order to eliminate me, something she could have done so easily herself for she was the empoisonneuse par excellence and grand mistress of a sorority of assassins! She has trained you well, I see.

No, don’t speak. I shall be rather thankful if you killed me now.”

Red Riding Hood hesitates.

At this dramatic point, Bambi the Deer prances in, singing this song:

Love is a song that never ends
Life may be swift and fleeting
Hope may die yet love's beautiful music
Comes each day like the dawn

And Red Riding Hood, the world’s greatest assassin, shoots Bambi dead.

The End.
(Thanks to the IT's: Cheks, Jazel, Jenny, Je, Matthew, Andrew, Arvin, Rowel, Jay, Sam, Chester, Iggy, Kat, and Ulrich. We all got together to write this story one afternoon, while acting it out.)

The Art of Writing is in Editing


We've all probably heard that in one form or another. But have we really considered what this means for a teacher?

For me it means two things. First, a student learns how to really write and think through revision. And second, if a student could achieve a good level of writing with revision, then why not publish the product?

A student learns a little more with each new draft. He gets to critique his thoughts and his manner of expressing them. He gets to look at other points of view, assess his evidence, and question his beliefs and biases. In many cases, he would have discussed with peers and debated with teachers. Teachers who only grade first drafts fail to provide these finer points of rhetoric.

As to publication, isn't this what university is for, to contribute to knowledge? This is true for students and teachers. One does not have to get to graduate school to write for a public.

Publication--the chance to be read and critiqued by the world--implies that there must be a "universal" standard to which all useful writing should tend. For me, a grade of 100 means "you could send this for publication in the Philippine Daily Inquirer", in my opinion. In a graduate class, the standard will be for the Journal of Toxicology or something like it. Of course, each magazine or newspaper will have a different set of standards and may require further editing. Neither does a 100 mean readers will agree with or like the article. More often than not, in fact, papers are rejected. But at that level, they are rarely rejected for blatant errors.

All can achieve this standard given enough time, so why not give them that time? I think that students should be allowed to revise as often as needed to reach publication level. The difference between the more talented and the less talented will be in the number of revisions it takes to reach that level, a number I do not take into consideration in the grading.

There are a few difficulties to this. One is that a teacher will have to check many papers. For instance, the most number of revisions that a student of mine required to reach 100 is eight; the median is four (The talented ones can do it in two; but no one gets even close to 100 at the first try.). Thus, if one had 30 students, each requiring 4 drafts to reach publication level, then one will be checking a total of 120 papers.

I get around this difficulty by requiring all students to write on a different topic every meeting, but I collect only five papers at random every day (failure to submit when called means a zero for a long exam; this zero can not be removed). Because the entire student list is randomized every day, a student may be called several days in a row, whereas others will never be called. I require the latter to take a long exam, which is also a revisable essay. Furthermore, I only ask for papers up to the second third of the semester; the rest of the term is exclusively for revisions.

Revisions can be turned in at any time. I return the annotated drafts at the following class meeting. The grade of each new draft replaces the draft previous to it (the grade does not necessarily improve with each new draft). Many of my students do not stop until they get the 100.

Isn't this tiring for the teacher? Yes. That is why I was thinking of requiring only three students to submit instead of five. Another strategy is to require each student to submit a fixed number of articles on fixed dates. I prefer, however, to have them always on their toes, and that's why I use a random system.

Shouldn't there be a limit to the number of revisions? Yes. Mine is a few days before the final exams. This deadline applies to all papers, even those first written at the start of the semester.

What about the on-the-spot essay exam? I still use them. But I make it clear that the answers should be short (few paragraphs), will not be published, and will be checked for logic and not for grammar (to some extent). I used to require 1-3 page papers for on-the-spots, but I regret those days when I used to give final grades to first drafts; with my standards then, many failed. Now, my standards are even more strict. Thus, when I hear of teachers who do not allow revision of major papers, it makes me doubt the quality of their teaching; not that they're bad teachers, but rather that they do not teach as well as they could. At the very least, neither they nor their students can escape the charge of lack of diligence. I even think part of the failure in education can be traced to putting final grades on first drafts in major papers.

Finally, won't this system lead to too many high-graders? Well, if the intention of the teacher is to give low grades, what can we do about that? But, even when the students get high grades on essays, there are still the usual "objective" or memory exams that can kill. I give these everyday, and they do pull grades down. I also require recitations, and they can be as fatal. Besides, many students have the tendency to delay making their revisions towards the end of the semester. They regret too late that 100 was within their reach, but laziness and lack of time management stole it from them.

The system I now use is tiring for me and even more for the students. But, in the end, even they think it was worth their while. What they end up with are works of art and scholarship that in a sense are certifiably good, especially if the works are published. I have already lined up the 100's for publication in various media, including this blog.

Sunday, March 9, 2008

Is Smeagol Guilty?: A mock trial, 10 March 2008







My class debated this question last 10 March in a mock trial. The main objective of the exercise was to synthesize and use knowledge of neurological phenomena, insanity in this case. Another objective was to give the students a practical exercise in rhetoric.

The defense team consisted of Marc Villaluna (counsel, right photo, standing), Bea Araneta (Dr. R. Wen, psychologist, right photo at the computer), and Adrian Portugal (Smeagol). The prosecution team consisted of Jorenz Perez (counsel, left photo standing), Charmaine Cheung (Shelob the Spider, left photo sitting), and Christina Villanueva (Frodo).

The defense argued for insanity on the grounds that the defendant, Smeagol, did not understand what he was doing, was not aware of his actions, and was under the control of an external and irresistible force. Expert witness Dr. R. Wen tried to show that Smeagol showed evidence of a disturbed mind at the time of the alleged crimes.

The prosecution tried to argue that Smeagol demonstrated planning skills and was, therefore, aware of what he was doing. Smeagol showed evidence of such skills when he “conspired” with Shelob. Shelob testified to the effect that she was offered food in the form of Frodo and Sam, although she did not specify whether the food was offered dead or alive. Smeagol also showed planning skills throughout the time that he was guiding Frodo and Sam on their voyage to Mount Doom. Frodo testified that he thought Smeagol has planning skills.

The jury (president Gabrielle Cruz) found that there was no evidence that Smeagol killed Deagol; there were no witnesses, and the body was not found. The prosecution was willing to drop the charge anyway. The jury also found Smeagol not guilty for conspiracy, on the grounds that the agreement with Shelob could not clearly be shown to constitute a plan to commit murder; Shelob herself stated that it was not clear to her whether the food to be provided was dead or alive. However, the jury found Smeagol guilty of theft. The jury agreed that he was capable of planning, and that this showed he was aware of his actions and, therefore, not insane at the time of the crimes. Furthermore, the jury thought that ownership of the ring has historically followed the "finders, keepers" rule; therefore, the de facto owner of the Ring at that time was Frodo. Smeagol desired to possess the ring, and he carried out that desire by biting Frodo’s finger off, as Frodo himself testified.

As regards technique, I noted that the counsels were inexperienced in the mock trial format. This was evident in that they did not distinguish cross examination from direct examination. At one point, the defense’s expert witness, who could easily have been discredited, instead controlled the cross examining counsel. The quality of the evidence left much to be desired; the teams had access to the films, but clips showing the sanity and insanity of Smeagol were not presented. The acting was not also very good. Smeagol, for instance, was supposed to act insane but kept giggling to himself in a self-conscious way. Shelob shot herself in the foot by claiming from the start that she thought Smeagol to be insane. More would have made this exciting. I also pointed out to the teams that mastery of the language was more important in a mock trial than in asian parliamentary, because there is more extemporaneous delivery, and greater theatrical possibilities, in the mock trial.

This is the third year the Smeagol trials in my class. It has always been interesting for teams and audiences alike. It is a rather fitting and memorable way to end a semester.

Jean Guitton on putting thoughts in order


Jean Guitton (1901-1999), the French philosopher and teacher, used to tell his students “that the art of expression consisted in saying the same thing three times.” In other words: 1) say what you are going to say; 2) say it; 3) say what you said.
This advice is good for reader and writer. The reader benefits from repetition. The art consists of repeating the same thing in different ways, so as not to bore the reader.
The writer benefits from a process to “transform intuitions into conclusions” by working backwards from the goal. Like solving a maze by starting from the exit. Guitton used to teach his students to make the first sentence they wrote on a fresh white page appear down at the bottom as their concluding sentence, prefaced by words to this effect: “Thus it is that…”.
But what about the transitions? Guitton provides a device: to ask yourself if you can conclude each section with the formula, “There is more to come.”
That said, whatever way you may have organized your material, there is always an alternative way: there is no perfect order.
(Ref. Guitton, J. A Student's Guide to Intellectual Work, University of Notre Dame Press, 1964)

Thursday, March 6, 2008

Conversations with Marvin: Is the University for all?


My student Marvin Sy (left) and I had one of those regular conversations over merienda yesterday. The topic of our debate was whether all students in the University ought to be there.
I immediately answered, "No." For I believe that only those with certain skills--abstraction, articulation, and the pursuit of ideas in books, according to Jacques Barzun (The Intellectual Life)--are fit for University work. This does not preclude the fact that there are brilliant people who should not be in University but, instead, would do better to enter specialized schools, because their talents are in practical matters and not in the abstract work peculiar to the University.


The distinction between abstract and practical may be more refined if we group jobs in this world under three general kinds based on the three transcendentals, namely, truth, good, and beauty.

The "truth" professions--if we can even call them professions--include the thinkers whose job is to contemplate and to research the truth. Liberal artists like philosophers and historians, many kinds of scientists, medical doctors (before residency), and lawyers are traditionally trained in Universities.

The "good" professions are those that deal with making things or making things happen. These include the engineers, managers, farmers, soldiers, and manual laborers. Their training consists not in abstractions but in the application of techniques. These are trained in special schools that offer heavy practical apprenticeships.

The "beauty" professions are those that deal with art of all sorts, that is, musicians, painters, architects, actors, and chefs. Again, they are offered many apprenticeships, with the difference that aesthetic talent is more important than practical talent.

The distinction of professions into three areas does not mean the categories are mutually exclusive. What is important, however, is that the way students are trained is matched to their dominant talents and the demands of their chosen profession, be it abstraction, practicality or aesthetics. The specificity of the training argues for a difference in the educational systems designed to implement that training.

Thus, management as a practical subject should not be a University major, concerned as the latter is with the "truth" professions (i.e., the liberal arts, cf. John Henry Newman, Idea of a University). The case of the HEC (Hautes Etudes Commerciales) school in France illustrates the point. This very prestigious school attracts some of the brightest students in the country, but it is not part of the University system. The same may be said of some business schools identified as separate institutions from their mother universities.

In the case of the University of Asia and the Pacific (UA&P), where Marvin studies and where I work, something similar has been done in the case of the Entrepreneurial Management program (EMP).

The EMP exists side by side with a regular business program (MScM), which in its first two years is a liberal arts program and, therefore, part of the University. MScM students move to the more practical School of Management by their third year. In contrast, from day one, EMP students, although they take some liberal arts, are still taught somewhat differently from their MScM cousins. The students are presumed to be different. EMP students are admitted on the basis of criteria that are not applied to MScM students: EM character traits best described as street smarts, intellectual traits best adapted to concrete rather than abstract problems, and pockets deep enough to finance a new business venture as part of the course requirements. Many students now in the liberal arts program may, on the basis of these criteria, be better in EM.

Thus, future MScM students must spend two years in the liberal arts, which in some cases will not match the students' talents. Is this practice counterproductive?

A special school with many business subjects and few liberal arts subjects would turn out great businessmen but weaker humanists. A heavy dose of liberal arts is motivated by a desire to form great humanists as well. But those subjects take away time from business subjects. For a practical man, this might prove boring or repulsive in the short term. In the long term, however, the liberal arts might be an asset, since business nowadays involves abstraction skills taught in the liberal arts; but whether they will, in fact, be an asset depends on whether the man learns those skills, and THAT depends on whether the subject is taught to match his talents.
Thus, if we must teach the liberal arts, we should not teach them in the same way to all students. Perhaps, we should not give them the same teachers. Separating special schools from the University is one way to make this happen.

The question remains: if there is a mismatch now, what do we do? Live with it. I argued that should his liberal arts subjects prove to be always above his head (Marvin being a practical man), he should do his best to fill the deficiencies by some practical exercise, like challenging his teachers to a debate.
And when he debates with me, better over some merienda or beer.

Debate on Sex Education, 6 March 2008



My students in biology debated the position "This house believes that sex education should be required by law in the Philippines". Asian Parliamentary format, modified to include an open forum.
Top: Government (LR) Marvin Sy (rebuttal), Julian de Leon (DPM), Benj de Leon (PM). Bottom: Opposition: Sabrina Tan (LO), Judy Alarilla (DLO), Pam Francia (rebuttal).

The main argument of the Government was that sex education, understood as "informing students about the consequences of sex", was needed to bring down the incidences of these consequences, such as unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and the like. The belief was that badly informed people, acting out of curiosity, tend to act irresponsibly, that is, oblivious to the potential unwanted consequences of their actions. Ergo, informing them--which in no way implies forcing them to follow a norm--would make them act more responsibly. As to the curriculum, it would consist of biological and psychological facts; counselling would be included. References to religion and morality were specifically left out of the proposed curriculum; how to use contraceptive methods was also not to be included.


The Opposition's argument was that any information-based program was either not effective in bringing down these incidences, or else might actually increase them because of natural curiosity combined with "hormones". The Opposition pointed out that that the problems of teenage sex were problems not of information but of values. Furthermore, the Opposition argued that the school was not the proper venue, and that it was in the intimacy of the family home that sex should be taught instead.


The audience, acting as adjudicator, found cause in favor of the Opposition, on the grounds that the Government failed to demonstrate with example that a sex education program based solely on information is effective in bringing down the numbers of unwanted consequences. It was pointed out that statistics existed for various countries such as Holland and the United States, but these were not used by the Government. Furthermore, the Government's refusal to include religion in the curriculum of sex education did not address the main cause of the problem, namely, a deterioration of values among the young.


As to technique, there was very good research on both sides, except for the lack of statistics on the effectiveness of sex education in reducing incidences. On the other hand, there was much information provided regarding the incidences of various sex-related problems in the Philippines.
The best speakers in this debate were Pam, Benj, and Marvin. Sabrina, Judy, and Julian made fine performances also. Pam had a fans club in the audience, which I think is understandable, because she has a rather passionate--I would say, even agitated--way of arguing; rivetting and entertaining.


Thanks to RJ Dino for taking the photos.
Coming up next: Is Smeagol guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder? See the blog on March 10.

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

Batchmates kicking Rudy out, to Canada


Rudy Depakakibo is flying off to Canada this coming Saturday, 8 March. But before that, we got together first at UCC Podium in Ortigas. (LR) Ferdz Fernando, Johnbee Sioson, Me, Rudy, Gil Cacha.

This picture was taken 4 March, a day after Rudy turned 40.

Sunday, March 2, 2008

Lourdes School homecoming, 23 Feb 2008







LSQC Homecoming 2008 at the Elementary School grounds! Top: Joey Escolar saluting. Middle: (L-R) Martija, Diokno, Artie Cajefe, Julius Carlos, and Gil Cacha. Bottom: (L-R) Arthur Magpantay, Vince Cumpas, Mervin Lechuga, and Raul Firme. In the background, much older Lourdesians.

Drinks were flowing, but we're drivers, so we were moderate.



Rudy's 40th birthday


High school classmate Rudy Depakakibo is turning 40 today, March 3! Johnbee Sioson, relatives, and some other friends of his organized a surprise party for Rudy at The Columns in Makati. I haven't seen Rudy since 1985.

Here we are. (L-R) Me, Gil Cacha, Rudy, and Johnbee. Gil is a finance executive, Rudy a banker, and Johnbee a lawyer (I'm a college prof). This is more or less how great we looked in high school. I think it's a question of keeping fit, and of having the right attitude (i.e., denial plus childlike excitement about everything).

I'm not slowing down in my badminton, biking and martial arts activities, for example, until injury or death force me to take a leave. Johnbee, in mind and fact, continues being a student, his wish ever since he was a young boy, and we've known each other since we were 10. Gil is into biking and pranic healing and so doesn't get sick; he wants to put up a religious congregation, or a political movement modeled after Hamas or Hezbolah. Rudy travels; he should've been in Paris at this time (he speaks fluent french), but Mom wanted him home. I mean, mon ami, c'est ton 40eme anniversaire!

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Welcome to the Cartesian Club!

Rene Descartes (1596-1650), French philosopher, was well known in his time as a natural scientist, but is often remembered today for his contributions to mathematics and philosophy. He is specially known for a certain method for arriving at truth.

Descartes prescribed a method of reasoning that began with simple premises, which are then built up by a series of inferences to arrive at more complex truths. Anyone armed with this method could arrive at truth faster and more certainly than the most intelligent who sought truth haphazardly.

My take on Descartes is that his method allows us to infer a lot with very little. I freely put this as the "art and science of judging a book by its cover".

Now I exaggerate: one can't really claim to read a book by not reading it. But the point is that much can be inferred from simple truths.

Thus, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Newton arrived at the theory of gravitation from contemplating a falling apple, and Einstein the theory of relativity from a thought experiment involving a dude in an elevator holding a flashlight that produced a stream of light that he assumed had a constant speed at all times. Thus also have men have set out on the path to greatness from nothing more than a contemplation of some footprints in the snow. The road to greatness is often long, and uncompromisingly disciplined, but most of all, filled with adventure.

I marvel at such simplicity.

Descartes, however, is just the head of a group of five sources of insights that together best describe my philosophy in life. The other four are:

1) Melinda S. Meade (Medical Geography as Human Ecology), who suggested that health was the result of interactions between the three dimensions of population, environment and culture--demography and biology, habitat and geography, behavior and traditions. William McNeill (Plagues and Peoples), Bryan Sykes (The Seven Daughters of Eve), and other "big picture" thinkers echo the same idea when they urge that biology significantly enriches, and sometimes radically alters, the conclusions we make from a study of the social sciences.

2) My uncle, Lubin Nepomuceno, a very successful corporate executive of a big multinational, who believed that to succeed in corporate life you must think that "you work for your boss, not your company".

3) Pope Benedict VI (Spe Salvi) who taught that lasting hope is not hope in "some thing", such as wealth or knowledge, which always grows stale, but in Some One. My cousin Jeannie Hizon Myron, who's more adventurous than myself and is an example of just this kind of hope, once wrote me: "If God brings you to it, He'll bring you through it."

4) My beloved teacher, the late Prof. Concepcion Dadufalza (1922-2004), whose mastery of the English language was matched only by her wisdom, and who taught me that "Boredom is a Choice." Prof. Dadufalza's legacy agrees with what another icon of mine, Jacques Barzun (The House of Intellect), once wrote: that the state of the mother tongue is an index of our control over our destiny.

Five insights. One adventurous life.

Welcome to the Club!