now available sa U.P. Press bookshop in Diliman!
Of love and other lemons (2012)
The Filipino is Worth Blogging For (2012)
Revolutionary Routes: Five Stories of Incarceration, Exile, Murder, and Betrayal in Tayabas Province 1891-1980 (2011)
Yes plagiarism might seem small and petty, it can seem like an academic thing, but it certainly isn’t moot, and I don’t know that making fun of Tito Sotto, in whatever way, will mean people taking this seriously. If at all, it reveals how we have inadvertently clouded the conversation on plagiarism with the fact of social class, i.e., pang-edukado naman ang issue na ‘yan, pang-kayo-kayo lang. Because really, who has spent time and effort talking about Sotto in light of this mistake? Who has started laughing at him, thinking jokes as weapons, too? Tayo-tayo nga.
jesse robredo was a blogger pala from october 2007 to august 2009 — take that, tito sotto! the blog Oddball has 31 entries that i intend to copy-and-paste and save and comb through. i hope it will tell us, or hint at, his thoughts on the economy, the peso-dollar exchange, VAT, the energy problem, foreign affairs, china, america, trapos, the pork barrel, at kung ano-ano’t sino-sino pa. too bad he stopped blogging after that last entry on cory’s death. i guess we all know why.
thanks to raissa robles and commenter @noggy for sharing.
Most published and posted commentaries on the RH bill show poor public understanding of science. I am sharing here a summary of my comments posted at the online forum on Philippine science. It is focused on the nature and role of science.
The objectives of science don’t include to find the truth. They are aimed to understand nature and the universe. Researchers do investigations to produce information — used for education, development programs, policy-making, developing technology etc. — for the people’s well-being.
Many studies are meant to build up or strengthen scientific consensus, as in evolution and climate change. These are factual conclusions — that is, supported by valid data. They are not the truth nor are they permanent; they can be changed by more studies. This is the progressive nature of science.
That nature of science explains why most harmful predictions — like Paul Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb” (1968) — did not happen. Continued research stopped the serious threats.
The same corrective actions of science can stop side effects or unexpected results — serendipitous nature of scientific research. The discovery of DDT for saving lives from malaria had unexpected by-product, which damage ecosystems.
On the other hand, the threats on the economyof demographic winter (or reduced, aging human population), peddled by nonscientists who are against the RH bill, are without scientific basis. I have yet to see properly published studies verifying the claims (find out with Advanced Google Scholar, by searching for publications covered in Science Citation Index or Social Sciences Citation Index. These are the internationally accepted criteria in evaluating research performance.
Hence, results of scientific research — that is, properly published — are reliable bases for resolving crucial, controversial issues, and making policy decisions. In the DDT case, for example, they influenced the decisions for its medical use and for its subsequent worldwide ban.
Scientists do not debate religious views. They try to explain science. “Science and religion are different ways of understanding. Needlessly placing them in opposition reduces the potential of both to contribute to a better future.” (Read more in “Science, Evolution, and Creationism” <http://www.nap.edu/sec>).