Charles Darwin, Science and Society

Four and a half years ago, I attended this forum in UP Diliman. I was invited by a good friend, mathematician Fidel Nemenzo, who was then the Director I think, of the Science, Technology and Society (STS) program in UP, aside from being a Math Professor.

Fidel rediscovered the Closing Remarks he gave that afternoon from his old files and sent it to me. Posting it below.

It was a big audience. And... Ahaa! I also found this from my old files of photos. That day, I was seated next to my former boss, Prof. Randy David. In front of us were Dr. Raul Fabella (left) and Dr. Perry Ong (right). The latter by the way, is among the natural scientists of UP who are non-believers of the "man-made" warming political science of the UN and various environmentalist groups.

Closing Remarks

Dr Fidel Nemenzo

Science and Society Program

Ideally, we ought to have a longer symposium—maybe even a week-long conference. We are after all examining the impact of one of the most innovative and influential scientific theories of all time.

This is our small way of commemorating the 150^th year of the publication of Charles’ Darwin’s groundbreaking The Origin of the Species. We are holding this cross-disciplinary symposium to honor Darwin’s enduring legacy and examine how his ideas have shaped thinking within and beyond biology. Even the controversies that these have provoked have enriched discourse, within and across disciplines.

Dr Perry Ong (Institute of Biology) talked about the three F’s and power of Darwin’s theory as an explanatory framework for biology. I would not go as far as saying that evolution is fact and not merely a theory-  as some declare. A scientific theory, unlike abstract mathematics, is merely a testable, falsifiable approximation of truth, which is discarded once proved to be false, giving way to better theories. But Darwins’s theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and the rigorous scrutiny of the scientific community, supported by a growing body of evidence. And unlike Newton and Einstein who proposed only descriptive theories, Darwin proposed both a descriptive theory and a plausible mechanism—that of  heritable variation with natural selection.

Dr Maris Diokno (Department of History) posed the question: how should historians teach the ideas of Darwin, and science in general? She lamented the trivialization of ideas and the biased and sloppy treatment of science in textbooks, brought about by a misunderstanding of science, and as well as that of science as it develops within history. Both historian and scientist need to dispel these misconceptions, by effectively communicating science and the history of science within our schools and to the general public. The history of science needs scientists, she says. Historians and writers of textbooks, too on the other hand have to study science.

The global economic crisis, as Dr Raul Fabella (School of Economics) reminds us, was a reality check for theorists who viewed the neat formalism such as that of Newtonian physics as appropriate for economics. This mathematization of  economics has led to the worsening exile of much of theory from the reality of financial bubbles and crashes. The turmoil in economics calls for new ideas and alternatives. Dr Fabella asserted that insights from Darwin and evolutionary biology will contribute to the rethinking in economic theory.

Darwinism of course continues to provoke controversy, as all great ideas do.  Current debates rage between scientists like Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion,  and critics on the side of religion, who cannot accept purposeless natural selection as the shaping mechanism behind evolution.

Dr Michael Tan (Department of Anthropology) discussed how science developed in the context of history and culture, arguing that modern science, in a way, emerged from religion and cultures that grew around religions. He cited as example the spirit and methods of inquiry of ancient Muslim scholars, whose scientific and mathematical contributions are part of the foundations of modern science. The problem, according to Dr Tan,  is  that the voices that ring loudest are those of the religious fundamentalists and the atheist scientists, whose narrow views merely feed each other. Equating science with the abandonment of religion fits the prejudices of advocates of intelligent design and creationism.  A deeper look at science and culture show that there is much room for dialogue. It is only when assertions are made beyond the legitimate boundaries of these non-overlapping realms of knowledge that the theory of evolution and religion seem antithetical.

In behalf of the college of science, I would like to thank our four speakers, for their generosity, for sharing their views on Darwin with a broad public audience such as this. We thank the School of Economics for co-sponsoring this symposium, and the Diliman Interactive Resource Center for setting up the equipment to record this event and beam it overseas, and make it available online as podcast. This symposium grew out of a reminder by Dean Noel de Dios (School of Economics) that 2009, Darwin’s bicentenary, and 150^th anniversary of his theory, was about to end. And how wonderful to end the year with a forum like this one, where we get together to share and debate ideas. We may come from different colleges but occasions like this remind us that we belong to   a community of scholars, and that while we do our research in our respective disciplines, we also need to explore the many ways in which our disciplines interact. We hope that we have more of these in the future. Thank you for coming, and good day to everyone.

------------- 

See also:
An ever-expanding universe, June 25, 2010
Pilipinas Forum 12: Origin of Zero, Nothingness, Big Bang..., September 25, 2011
Pilipinas Forum 14: Math, Infinity and Limit, October 04, 2011
Pilipinas Forum 20: Turbulence, Chaos Theory and the Stockmarket, November 13, 2011
Pol Ideology 40: On Social Darwinism, May 23, 2013

Pork Barrel 2: Napoles, Legislature and Executive Branches Corruption

The Napoles-Some Legislators’ pork barrel scandal continues for several weeks now. And I started reading only a few days ago. I saw that there are too many articles written already. Here are some headlines, from the Inquirer. 

After the Inquirer, Rappler seems to be second in devoting lots of papers and analysis about the issue.

For now, I just want to comment on what my former boss in “Public Forum”, IBC Channel 13’s public affairs program from 1987-90, also my former undergrad teacher, Prof. Randy David, wrote last week. In his column A Thesis on Corruption at the Inquirer last July 31, 2013, Randy wrote:

Even if only half of the allegations against her turn out to be true, Janet Lim-Napoles, the supposed brain behind the mind-boggling pork barrel scam that is the subject of ongoing Inquirer reports, would easily qualify as the country’s foremost expert on corruption. The elaborate scheme attributed to her presumes an intimate grasp of the workings of the political system that no Filipino scholar has ever fully documented....  

Should she ever land in prison and need a benign intellectual pursuit to keep her active mind at work, I would recommend that she consider writing a participant-observer account of the social system of corruption. I would be happy to offer advice on the theoretical framework. A working title for her thesis might be: “Politics and the function of corruption: How the pork barrel works.” The aim of the study would be to bring out the background assumptions implicit in the way the JLN group of companies navigated the murky waters of government. Such research would help transitional societies like ours find effective antidotes to the scourge of corruption in public service.  

I would begin with the hypothesis that the pork barrel, which goes by the pretentious name Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), is really nothing more than a bribe to the legislators who hold the power to approve the national budget. This concession can take many forms and go by other names like “congressional initiatives.” But the basic idea is the same: to provide congressmen and senators the means to cater to the specific needs of their constituencies, and, if they wish, to recoup part of what they spend during elections….  

The main argument of this imaginary thesis would be that a political system like ours incorporates corruption into its operations as a condition for its maintenance. In short, corruption is functional to the system. The system’s default is to reproduce itself. Nothing will compel it to change except persistent pressure from outside the system. If the other institutional systems—the mass media, the Church, the economic system, the law, etc.—can generate enough noise and irritation over its performance, the political system will have no choice but to pause, reflect and reform."

Here are my comments to some of Randy's points.

(1) “the pork barrel… is really nothing more than a bribe to the legislators who hold the power to approve the national budget.”

I Agree. Pork barrel is icing on the cake. A bribe by the executive branch to the legislative branch so that the former can continue many of its wasteful spending, its high and multiple taxation, and its endless and irresponsible public borrowings. This applies not only to the current but to all the past administrations, from Marcos to Cory, Ramos, Estrada and Arroyo. If legislators are not bribed with pork barrel, they will invent new schemes anyway.  They are deliberating, allocating and approving trillion plus budget annually, became P2 trillion this year, and nearly P2.3 trillion next year, national government alone – excluding funding and collections by LGUs, government corporations and finance institutions like SSS, PhilHealth, PagIBIG, PAGCOR, PCSO, DBP, Land Bank, MWSS, MRT, NFA, Napocor, and a hundred plus more -- and they have zero share from their efforts? That is like asking the legislators to become angels and be poor by choice and hence, is impossible to happen.

(2) “a political system like ours incorporates corruption into its operations as a condition for its maintenance. In short, corruption is functional to the system.”

Again, I agree. The budget keeps rising yearly despite wastes and corruption in past budget that are under investigation and/or unaccounted for, means that the scheme has its own life, its own momentum. But while people refer only to corruption by the legislators and those in Malacanang, the LGUs, and the appointed bureaucrats especially in notorious agencies like BIR, BOC, DPWH, DOTC, LTO, DILG, PNP, DND, AFP, DepEd, etc., what is rather hidden is corruption by the public themselves. The  voters, the welfare seekers and dependents, the academics and consultants, the private sector suppliers, the NGOs and media, the multilaterals and foreign aid. Meaning to a certain extent, you and I, we are somewhat part of the corruption in government without our realizing it. How?

Let us go to Randy’s concluding sentence.

(3) “If the other institutional systems...can generate enough noise and irritation over its performance, the political system will have no choice but to pause, reflect and reform.”

This, I think, is partly incorrect. Corruption happens not only in the wastes or robbery of legislators' pork barrel. There is also corruption in non-pork barrel spending, like spending in agencies and sectors where the target benefits or results are absent or not clear.

Take education for the poor, healthcare for the poor, housing for the poor, AR-tractors-credit for the poor, rice subsidy for the poor, etc. Made since many decades ago. If any or all of these programs were successful and done with minimal wastes and corruption, poverty should  have been low at this time. There would be no need for cash transfer for the poor, condoms and pills for the poor.

Just one generation of useful and efficient public education, say in the 60s, would have already produced productive and skilled parents, and their kids would no longer be poor and need another round of education and books for the poor, healthcare and hospital for the poor... for many generations.

In short, many policies and the way they were designed were wasteful and corrupt in the first place. When those programs for the poor were designed in the 60s for instance, they were meant to be perpetual, forever and no time table subsidy programs, and poverty persists until today. And current welfare and subsidy programs, still forever and no time table, are expected to produce the same degree of poverty by 2050 and beyond.

Corruption in policies makes corruption in implementation and legislation easier to commit, with or without pork barrel.

-------------

See also: 
Welfarism 15: Abolishing Pork Barrel, February 04, 2012 
Pol. Ideology 43: On BIG Government Fetish, June 17, 2013
Pork Barrel: The Janet Napoles - Legislators' Scam, August 04, 2013

Pol. Ideology 26: Socialists in a Liberal Government

Socialism and liberalism are political ideologies that are poles apart. The former is advocating more or big government, little or no free market, and state ownership of all means of production, little role for private property ownership. The latter is working on the opposite side, advocating less government and a lean state, free trade and free market, more private property ownership, from personal items to means of production. Many other ideologies fall in between.

A few weeks ago, there were many news reports and commentaries about the Presidential Adviser on Political Affairs, Mr. Ronald Llamas, about his big purchase of fake DVDs. A few months before that, his SUV driven by his bodyguards while he was abroad was caught by the police as having long firearms and it created some scandal for Ronald. In the DVD purchase case, the issue was that a high government official is patronizing pirated products when the government is campaigning against piracy and should be protecting intellectual property rights (IPR) like the copyright of movies.

I do not want to go into details about those news reports and other commentaries, but I commented on a friend's facebook wall about the issue. My take is not so much about the pirated DVDs and IPR, I've written a lot about that subject, just search "On Intellectual Property Abolition" series in this blog.

Here is what my friend, Bonn, wrote:

I share (almost) the same argument and sentiment about the character and politics of Ronald Llamas.

I'm, however, saddened and worried about how supposedly critical media outfits, social observers, reformers, and even some in the progressive community have been easily drawn into the anti-reform propaganda and plot created by spin doctors. Hyping up, exaggerating, and spin-doctoring this recent DVD issue and the AK47 incident are obviously orchestrated by anti-reformers whose main objective is to remove Llamas, who is definitely a formidable force in the ongoing process and project for governance reforms and social change.