Ang Matalim, Nakakahiwa

from Neurotopia

p.s.

pareng Mon, kumusta na

Going International

I had a post about former Judge Floro a while back, he even left a comment on the story and I told him that I would write a follow up post on his story when I had the time. Obviously, I was not able to do that. Then, picking up a free copy of the Asian Wall Street Journal, I came upon this story.

Former Judge Florentino Floro has hit the big time. When I first read about him, his story was featured in Reuters. Now he is in the Wall Street Journal story which was picked up by one of my favorite blogs.

Then and now, his claim is that he should not have been relieved of his position because

"It shouldn't matter what I believe in, whether it's Jesus, Muhammad, or Luis, Armand and Angel,"

On the face of it, he is absolutely correct, it does not matter what he believes in, as long as he does his duties as a Judge fairly and honestly. And the Philippine Supreme Court resolution that relieved him of his position actually states this fact

"There is no indication that Judge Floro is anything but an honorable man. And, in fact, in our disposition of the 13 charges against him, we have not found him guilty of gross misconduct or acts or corruption"

But he was not relieved of his position because of what he believed in, he was relieved of his position because of

"the findings of psychosis by the mental health professionals assigned to his case indicate gross deficiency in competence and independence."

In the WSJ article, it states that

"He passed a mandatory psychiatric evaluation applied to all prospective judges and was sworn in as a regional trial-court judge in November of that year, handling both civil and criminal cases in Malabon, a district in greater Manila."

What is not stated in the article, that he failed two previous psychiatric tests in 1995 and 1998 because as stated by the evaluating psychologists in 1995

"evidences of developing psychotic process"

and in 1998

"he is at present not intellectually and emotionally equipped to hurdle the responsibilities of a judge and he may decompensate when exposed to anxiety-provoking and stress-laden situation"

but

Because of his impressive academic background, however, the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) allowed Atty. Floro to seek a second opinion from private practitioners. The second opinion appeared favorable thus paving the way to Atty. Floro’s appointment as Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge of Branch 73, Malabon City, on 4 November 1998.

The Supreme Court came to regret this decision by the JBC because despite all the psychoilogical findings against former Judge Floro, the SC states

"It goes without saying that Judge Floro’s appointment as RTC judge is fait accompli. What awaits us now is the seemingly overwhelming task of finding the PROPER, JUST AND EQUITABLE solution to Judge Floro’s almost seven years of suspension in the light of the fact that the penalty imposed herein does not merit a suspension of seven years."

The Philippine Supreme Court tried to do the just and equitable thing, and judging by Judge Floro's actions after his relief, I say the Philippine Supreme court succeeded.

p.s.

Links to Judge Flortentino Floro's actions after being relieved of his position.

His blog
A thread he started in badscience.net
Blog post from Lowering the Bar on Judge Floro
Blog post from A Criminal Waste of Space
News story from Sun.Star Manila

TV Hoaxed

Got this story while reading the James Randi Educational Foundation's weekly commentary. Olivier Van Cantfort, of Belgium sent the story to the JREF. It was about how a parody site (in French), was able to hoax a Television program from France. Here is the link to the entire story, translated from French, and here are the stated reasons of the hoaxers who did the deed:

• because it was a unique opportunity to make a big joke, kind of like "punk'd" but with TV as the victim, and moreover without having all the means of TV stations at our disposal.


• because the opportunity makes the criminal... The journalist offered us the opportunity for the hoax right away during the very first contact. That he could read the web pages of Destroy-Escort and think that it's real is simply mind-boggling. And if he didn't read those pages before contacting us then it would show a complete lack of professionalism. So, yes, our main reason is this: we created this hoax without any other real reason than because we were given the opportunity, because we belong to communities that are too often stigmatized by television. We weren't able to resist for more than two minutes the temptation to give some TV people a taste of their own medicine by showing that sometimes - if not "often" - what's on television is just nonsense...


• because it was intolerable that such a powerful communication tool - by the size of its audience - didn't go through the pains of checking what they say. As Denise Fabre was happy to remind us all during the show: "When one works in TV, one has to be careful about what one says..." It's a matter of responsibility on the part of the one who speaks and of respect towards those who listen to him through that mass media that is television. The simple presence of our hoax in the landscape of French television raises the question of the authenticity of some of the broadcasts that happen in France...


• because the quest for sensation that drives television channels transforms them in just a succession of images, the veracity of which is no longer the main objective and this is not acceptable for a media that manipulates images.


• because by creating this hoax, we really "investigated" the professionals implicated in our story and it appeared to us that this innocent entertaining show was the work of professionals well known in the French TV world, and because of their recognized professional qualities they shouldn't have fallen for our joke.


• And because there has to be one last reason for all this: definitely because it's been way too easy...

Which makes this story applicable the world over and in all media outlets. Maybe the media, including those in the Philippines can learn form this experience.

Friday the 13th

Just Wondering

I was commmuniting from work yesterday when I suddenly realized that the date was Friday the 14th. This led me to conclude that the day before was Thursday the 13th. This led me to wondering whether the bad luck associated with Friday the 13th will be spread over the 2 days. Will Thursday the 13th and Friday the 14th be half as unlucky as Friday the 13th and will the bad luck during the course of those two days be equal to the bad luck during a Friday the 13th.

Of course days of the week are not usually associated with luck, good or bad, except mondays, which everybody hates, which makes it unlucky, i mean the day itself because if tuesday was the designated first day of work, then everybody will be hating tuesdays rather than mondays, but this pragraph is leading nowhere. :)

The number 13 then is the culprit, 13 has long been associated with bad luck, but what makes Friday the 13th more unluckier (double redundancy) than thursday the 13th? And is there a hierarchy of unlucky days? Will days close to Friday, be unluckier than days further from Friday the 13th? Will Thursday the 13th for example be unluckier than Monday the 13th? Is there a mathematical formula to determine the ratio of bad luck between days that falls on the 13th?

Does a month that have a Friday the 13th more unlucky than a month that does not have a Friday the 13th?

These are the questions that keep me awake at nights. How can I decide courses of action without answers to these pressing question? Ah well, I will just have to muddle through somehow.

P.S.

I realize that with the number of people in this earth, somebody somewhere has probably asked the same questions above, and somebody somewhere has probably posted the answers on the internet, but I was amused enough that I do not want to know the answer right away. when I get around to hunting for the answers, I will update this post. If somebody already knows the answer, give me the link and I will update this post.

Thanks.

Nobel Prize in Physics

The Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded today and the winners are...

Roy J. Glauber
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

"for his contribution to the quantum theory of optical coherence"

John L. Hall

JILA, University of Colorado and National Institute of Standards and Technology, Boulder, CO, USA and

Theodor W. Hänsch
Max-Planck-Institut für Quantenoptik, Garching and Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany

"for their contributions to the development of laser-based precision spectroscopy, including the optical frequency comb technique".

Source:
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/2005/announcement.html
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/2005/index.html
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/2005/press.html
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/2005/info.pdf

Salen-ga Award

"Salen-ga, a Filipino, discovered that the negative electron is actually positive"

In honor of Prof. Edgardo E. Escultura, I am proposing the establishment of the Salen-ga awards. The Salen-ga awards will be given to that exemplary Filipino who has contributed to the development of Filipino's interest in science through the propagation of their crackpot theories.

I propose the creation of the Salen-ga Society. The Salen-ga Society will be the organization to administer the award. Those who wish to join the Salen-ga Society can apply here.

I propose that the award be given every 5th of May to commemorate the day when the Manila Times reported that Prof. EEE had disproven Andrew Wiles proof regarding Fermat's Last theorem.

Nominations to the award are now open, the first nominee, of course is Prof. Edgar Escultura. To nominate people, one must join the Salen-ga Society.

Suggestion for the improvement of the award are welcome, please join the Salen-ga Society.

Changing his mind

I got this comment from "Escultura Admirer" and I want to thank him for updating me on the latest developments with Prof. Escultura. I wanted more details so I went to Prof. Escultura's guest book and here is what I found.

On Tuesday 07/05/2005 5:23:50pm, a Mr. Roehlano M. Briones, wrote to Prof. Escultura this letter:

"I have attempted to confirm your story about the Nobel Prize nomination reported in Manila Times and found some anomalies.

I did a search for "Hieber" and "Jonhasen" in the Royal Swedish Academy website:

I got no hits. Nor do I find the names by checking one-by-one.

Furthermore information from the Nobel Prize website on nominations is clear:

http://nobelprize.org/physics/nomination/index.html

Information about nomination, etc. is kept secret for FIFTY YEARS. Only the winner is informed of the outcome.

Kindly send me your clarification by e-mail. Thank you."

Prof. Escultura responded

"Yes, it is a hoax and I have a statement about it in the Manila Times.

Thanks."

On Wednesday 07/06/2005 0:31:42am, a Mr. Benjamin Flores inquired

"Dear Professor,

Now that you have personally admitted as a hoax your "awards", I would like to know when the Manila Times will retract its articles and issue an apology for their flawed reporting?

best intentions,"

For which Prof Escultura replied

"The Manila Times will have my statement Thursday. E. E. Escultura"

Apprently, the letter did not get published because on Thursday 07/07/2005 4:08:13pm, Benjamin Flores again wrote to Prof. Escultura:

"Dear Professor,

The Thursday edition of Manila Times did not carry your statement.
------------
Did you actually win the Carl Gauss medal and the Michel Prize as well or was that also part of the hoax?"

The reply was

"The Times has not yet published my statement. It might appear on the same day the nobel article appeared. No independent verification of Gauss but appears to be independent. Michel Prize there is continuing dialogue with me and I have made the last requirement Tuesday. One of members involved in this project is a victim of the hoax.

E. E. Escultura"

Then on Friday 07/22/2005 3:40:55pm Richard Viejo asked

"Dear Professor,

I have an impressionable nephew who studies in Kalayaan College. Would you be so kind to let us know when your retraction will come out in the Manila Times?

Sincerely"

Things stood like this until on Tuesday 08/02/2005 7:31:11pm, Professor Escultura wrote

"Dear Mr. Viejo,

There is no need for rebraction. Everything is GO and will be known in due time.

E. E. Escultura"

So there it is, Prof. Escultura's belief that the nobel nomination is a hoax lasted for less than 30 days. And how come he came to believe that it was a hoax? The latest entry in his guest book explains

"Gentlemen/Madames,

For those who missed my recent statement, allow me to state it again.

The Nobel nomination is on. My previous assessment that it was a hoax was wrong. The error was stems from a conspiracy to make me believe that it was a haox. I hsve since then been contacted by my nominators to explain the situation and confirm my nomination.

E. E. Escultura"

Prf. Escultura Apparently missed this quote from Mr. Briones' letter

"Furthermore information from the Nobel Prize website on nominations is clear:

http://nobelprize.org/physics/nomination/index.html

Information about nomination, etc. is kept secret for FIFTY YEARS. Only the winner is informed of the outcome."

Prof. Escultura, unless you won, you are not supposed to know you were even nominated. That you are being informed by your "nominators" that you are nominated is a CLUE that it is a hoax. Please check more carefully.

p.s.

I want to thank Mr. Briones, Mr. Flores, Mr. Viejo and Mr. Reynold (whose letter I did not quote here) for their efforts to set the record straight on this matter even venturing within Prof. Escultura's guest book. To his credit, Prof. Escultura has been very open to all comers in his guest book, and does not seem to censor any of the posts even if the comments are against him.

Update:
Escultura Admirer has pointed out that Prof. Esculura has edited out from his guestbook the comments EA quoted regarding the PCIJ and UP. If EEE does not edit comments from othe people, it would seem that he does edit at least his own writings.

New Update:

I browsed EEE's site and I found out that the EA's quote is still there it's located not in EEE's guestbook but in his message board.

As I was browsing the message board I came upon this entry

Dear friends and colleagues,

I just had a conference with Andrew Wiles arranged by Dr. J-L Raymond of Luynes University, France (who awarded me the Michel Prize). He said he agreed with me but wanted more clarification as he is preparing to respond to my detractors. I shall publish the transcript of the conference in my journal in January for historical purposes.

E. E. Escultura

This message was posted by EEE July 12, 2005 at 7:02 PM. I wonder what kind of conference it was. And why should the transcripts be published only in January?

His admission of the Nobel Prize nomination is a hoax can also be seen there

Revisiting Escultura

I was browsing Alecks Pabico's article on Edgar Escultura when I came upon a letter that I wrote to the Manila Times regarding their news story about the good professor receiving the Carl Friederich Gauss Prize from the International Mathematical Union. I was not expecting them to again print a letter from me and I was distracted by the events then occuring in the Philippines that I did not see their response until now. My letter and the Manila Times response was copied by Jo Torres in the comments section of Alecks articles.

I mentioned in my letter that according to the website of the International Mathematical Union, the Carl Friederich Gauss Prize will be awarded for the first time in 2006 and I asked them to include this fact to amend their story.

Rather than directly refuting the fact, by for example, contacting the IMU directly and asking them to include the name of Mr. Escultura in the IMU website as a winner of the prize, the Manila Times published 2 letters from a John Gardiner supposedly from the International Mathematical Union with an e-mail address of imu@ias.edu and from a certain Imgul L. Bel member of the Deutsche Mathematiker-Vereinigung with an e-mail address at scott.migdole@yale.edu.

The letters were addressed to Prof. Escultura advising and congratulating him on winning the said prizes. Unfortunately, like the letters that Mr. Escultura supposedly received from Andrew Wiles, that the Manila Times describes as e-mail, these supposed letters were also comments from Mr. Escultura's guest book which Abe of Don't Let Me Stop You has proven, can be easily spoofed.

And again, the Manila Times seem not to know how to operate a browser and/or a search engine. Let us deal with Mr. John Gardiner first. The top item if you search for "John Gardiner" in google belongs to Prof. John Gardiner, a professor of psychology. A search for "John Gardiner and International Mathematical Union" yields only the Manila Times story, a poor yield for the President of the International Mathematical Union. and the imu@ias.edu e-mail? belongs to Phillip A. Griffiths, Secretary of the IMU. Who then is John Gardiner and why is he using an e-mail that does not belong to him? He certainly is not the President of the International Mathematical Union, that honor belongs to Professor John M. Ball, Sedleian Professor of Natural Philosophy and Fellow of the Queens College at Oxford University.

A simple search, I did it in 20 minutes, could have informed the Manila Times that they may not be dealing with a real person here, maybe the search result of Professor John Gardiner, psychologist could have given them a clue?

Next, Imgul L. Bel, a google search yielded no results. Very paltry for a member of Yale University. Similar results were obtained when I searched the Yale University phonebook but not when you search for the supposed e-mail address of Mr. Bel. A google search for the e-mail scott.migdole@yale.edu, reveals that the e-mail belongs to, surprise, Scott Migdole - Chief Operating Officer of the Yale Behavioral Health program from the Yale Department of Psychiatry.

So again, the Manila Times had believed comments coming from Mr. Escultura's guest book. They believed that the Carl Friederich Gauss Prize, is given through online transactions. They did not check the veracity of the supposed prize nor the reality of the commenters. If they did, maybe the links to known mental health practitioners would have given the Manila Times a clue that they are being played for fools.

I do not fault Mr. Escultura on this and previous matters, he is a harmless old crank who probably actually believes in his theories. The Manila Times however should know better, keeping to best journalistic practices should keep them safe from hoax letters. But they did not, and so they tarnish their reputation.

Hoaxes

While reading a book entitled "Hoaxes" by Curtis D. MacDougall, first published in 1940 but I am reading the revised edition published in 1958, I came upon a description of a hoax perpetrated in the early 1900's. (page 63, 4th paragraph)

"No small part of the $1,000,000,000 which the Post Office Department estimates is collected annually in mail frauds changes ownership in what is known as the Spanish prisoner game-since the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War, the Mexican prisoner game. Ostensibly written by a person unjustly incarcerated in a foreign country, the Spanish prisoner letter enjoins absolute secrecy and asks for a sum of money to be sent to a friend to assist in obtaining the release of a sizable fortune in the United States. Despite innumerable official warnings, this old one still is being worked profitably. In March 1939, the Department of State announce the old hoax's most recent appearance as a form letter from Mexico offering a one-third interest for assistance in recovering $285,000 in a trunk in an unspecified custom house somewhere in the United States. In 1947 and 1953 a new wave was reported by the Post Office Department."

For those with an e-mail account, this story will be familiar because this hoax/scam has now been renamed into the 419 or nigerian scam and you have probably received an e-mail that fits the description above.

It is interesting and exasperating that people are so gullible that a single scam can be perpetrated repeatedly for at least 60 years and people will still fall for it.

Update

While browsing the Quatloos website, I found out that the name of Senator Loi Ejercito had been used in a variation of this scam.

Escultura Resurrected

While reading through the pcij blog for the latest on the gloria tapes when I noticed in the trackback section a new posting on Edgar Escultura as documented by Abe, at the Don't Let Me Stop You blog.

If you are still interested in what Mr. Escultura has to say or just want a good laugh, please read Abe's blog. Please note that Abe has also found a new story from the Manila Times that Mr. Escultura has been nominated for the Nobel Prize, presumably in Physics as there is no Nobel Prize in Mathematics. A quick look in the Nobel Prize website states that:

"information about the nominations is not to be disclosed, publicly or privately, for a period of fifty years"

so we cannot verify if Mr. Escultura has or has not been nominated.

Abe is of the opinion that the story from the Manila Times has Mr. Escultura as their only source and I agree with him. The Manila Times have not learned to verify stories submitted to them by one Edgar Escultura.

For example, a quick look at the website of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and their membership list will tell us that they have no members named Johannes Hieber nor Lars Jonhagen. There were nobody surnamed Jonhagen nor Hieber though they have 2 members named Johannes and 32 named Lars. You can try the exercise by going to this site

http://www.kva.se/KVA_Root/eng/academy/members/search.asp

Update 6/20/2005

Just read the comments section of Alecks Pabico's blog on EEE and he has already done the checks on the people who supposedly nominated EEE for the Nobel Prize. He has contacted at least one of them. Read the latest developments in the comments section of Alecks Pabicos original story.

Updates on EEE

The Manila Times seem to have given up on answering questions on why they did not verify the press release of EEEscultura. To redirect the attention of the public, they have given EEE space in their paper to spout on his theories. EEE has now penned a letter to the editor and reiterated most of the points in the letter in his column. They have some interesting discussions on this topic at the comments section of Alecks Pabico's blog at the PCIJ.

I think that we have reached the end of this story, the Manila Times is unwilling to admit to their journalistic mistake and EEE has been insisting on his refutation of Andrew Wiles proof of Fermat's last theorem since at least 1998.

I just hope people will be remember, not everything you read is true.

Update on an update

If you want a comprehensive coverage of this issue, you might want to go over to the dontletmestopyou,blog by abe, his latest writing on this issue is here

Virgin Coconut Oil and AIDS

I read this story yesterday from the Philippine Daily Inquirer. The story is posted on their website (now archived) here. The article tells the story of Tom (no last name given), who contracted AIDS when he was gang raped in the middle east while working as an overseas contract worker.

He returned to the Philippines in 2002 where he found out that conventional medicine "could not help alleviate at least his pains" so according to the story "Given up for dying, Tom knew he had to look elsewhere-beyond drugs-to win his battle."

He turned, to virgin coconut oil as prescribed by Dr. Conrado Dayrit, the father of the recently resigned Health Secretary of the Philippines. Through, the application of virgin coconut oil in his skin twice a day and ingestion of 6 tablespoonfuls daily, Tom, in nine months, was able to have "restored enough (life energy) to become an eloquent testimony to how something so natural as virgin coconut oil had halted his free fall (from AIDS). His sores are now just scars and,

"Each time Tom went to have his periodic hospital tests, his viral load decreased progressively. Tom said that when he told hospital doctors what he was taking, they could not believe that an inexpensive natural food oil was killing the viruses better than all the expensive drugs science could churn out."

The rest of the story tells of what Filipino and some foreign researchers are doing to research and promote the curative power of the coconut.

This story of Tom disturbs me because it is long on personal details, how Tom got AIDS from being gangraped, but short on medicinal details. Some questions that springs to mind are:

One, was Tom, using conventional AIDS medicine at the same time that he was using virgin coconut oil? If he was, maybe some of the credit should be given to them.

Two, if Tom was not using conventional AIDS medicine simultaneously with virgin coconut oil, is he then the only one who has gone through this regimen? As the article states, virgin coconut oil is relatively inexpensive, surely the researchers could afford to give virgin coconut oil to at least 9 other HIV/AIDS positive Filipinos to test their hypothesis. If there are others, what has happened to them?

Three, if Tom was the only one who has gone through this regimen, then what is the medicinal value of his testimony? Conventional medicines are approved only after clinical trials. They test the curative properties of the medicine on more than one person to be sure that it's curative powers was not due to chance.

Fourth, can there be other explanation to why his sores healed and his viral load decreased progressively? Like maybe a healthier lifestyle?

This story bothers me because the Philippines has been relatively unscathed from the AIDS epidemic. But we are in a precarious situation, according to this inquirer story , "majority of Filipinos are still at a loss on how the deadly disease (HIV/AIDS) is acquired". Furthermore "The Department of Health (DoH) has described the AIDS cases in the country as "hidden and growing" in terms of number."

Other relevant statistics from the story are "at least 23 percent of Filipinos aged between 15 and 24 believe they are "invincible" against the virus." and "About 60 percent more believe there's now a cure for HIV/AIDS so they have somehow become complacent in their sexual activities"

The story warns that "What we're seeing for AIDs is an ebb tide before the tsunami where the tide recedes and people are complacent, just looking at the coastline, playing, unmindful of the danger,"

A story about how wonderful are the healing powers of virgin coconut oil, while pleasing to Filipino pride and the manufacturers of virgin coconut oil is dangerous to Filipino's health, especally since the healing powers remains unproven.

I can readily envision Filipinos opting out of conventional treatment to try virgin coconut oil. I can also readily imagine that more people will become more complacent in their sexual acivities and practices because of this story.

The Philippines is teetering on the edge of a full blown HIV/AIDS epidemic, this story is just irresponsible.

Story from the PCIJ

A member of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), Mr. Alecks Pabico, tried to do what the Manila Times should have done and researched the "UP Math prof proves Princeton man wrong" story.

First, He found out that the supposed e-mail from Andrew Wiles, was written on the guestbook of Mr. Escultura's website. I found it on page 5, of the guestbook. On page 4, another or the same person claiming to be Andrew Wiles wrote "You do, of course, realize I was joking, right? I mean about FLT. Apparently, you're the only one who took the whole thing seriously."

Second, He tracked down a contact address of Mr. Andrew Wiles, and and asked him to comment on the claims made by the Manila Times story. Mr. Wiles denies e-mailing or even of knowing the Mr. Escultura's website.

Third, He interviewed Mr. Escultura and got him to agree that some of the details from the story were wrong.

Letter from the UP Math Department

A friend sent this letter from faculty members of the University of the Philippines' Math Department. Mr. Escultura taught at the University of the Philippines.

Letter to the Editor of the Manila Times

We find the Manila Times’ front page story (“UP Math Prof proves Princeton Man Wrong”, 5 May) disturbing as it has given many readers false and unfounded information, and hence, a false sense of pride about our nation's scientists. To say that the celebrated proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem (FLT) by Princeton mathematician Andrew Wiles is wrong is a tall claim and would put into question one of the 20th century’s greatest intellectual achievements.

In 1637, Pierre de Fermat conjectured that the equation x ^n + y^n= z^n has no non-zero integer solutions whenever the exponent n is greater than 2. Several generations of mathematicians searched for a proof of FLT, which became the Holy Grail of mathematics. By discovering astonishing connections between different areas of mathematics, Wiles finally proved FLT in 1995. His proof was carefully studied by many mathematicians all over the world before it was published.

Edgar Escultura now says that Wiles was wrong. A refutation of this importance would have sent out ripples in the scientific community and landed in pages of newspapers around the world. Instead, it has fed discussions on the Internet on cranks and scientific discovery.

Your reader Roy Choco was correct: a newspaper of your stature should have done more sleuthing and checking of facts. Certainly, you need to do more than echo the assertions of Escultura.

The Chicago event after the announcement of Wiles' proof of FLT (Manila Times: "In Chicago, for instance, mathematicians marched on the streets in euphoric celebration.") never took place. This must have been based on a June 1993 Chicago Tribune article (see for example http://www.langston.com/Fun_People/1993/1993AGD.html) which parodied the excitement of math people whenever a difficult math problem is solved. A fruitless google search on Escultura’s collaborator “Bernard Ziegler of the University of Texas in Houston” leads us to suspect that a mathematician of that name does not exist.

Ed Escultura first raised the issue of foundational problems of mathematics at least 15 years ago, asserting as shaky the grounds which concepts/definitions—including all the mathematics we were taught in school-- stand on. Then in 1993, he trained his guns on Fermat's Last Theorem, followed by the gravitational n-body problem. This last problem eluded Einstein until his death.

In his papers, Escultura does not give a critique of Wiles' work per se; FLT is simply the straw man he takes jabs at to question the real number system and its foundations. The foundations are wrong, he says, and therefore statements built on them, like FLT, are 'wrongly-formulated.' By rebuilding the real number system on new ground, he proceeded to construct counter-examples to Fermat's statement.

Counter-examples to Fermat are not new. If one changes the setting of the equations, then solutions to the equation of Fermat can be found. For example, it has been known since the early 1900s that solutions to Fermat’s equation exist in the world of “p-adic numbers”. But this does not refute Fermat and Wiles’ theorem: that there are no solutions in the world of integers.

What is meant by “foundations” in mathematics are the axioms (or postulates, as many of us have learned in high school geometry), from which mathematical statements are proved through a chain of logical reasoning. Axioms are very much like the rules of a game of chess. A configuration of pieces on the board is possible if it can be arrived at after a sequence of legal moves. In the same way, a mathematical statement is valid (or “correct”) if it can be proved from the axioms in a finite number of steps.

Escultura says that some axioms of the real number system are false. But axioms, just like the rules of a game, are just axioms—neither false nor true. There can be different systems of mathematics, each with its own set of axioms and semantics.

Escultura saw "errors" in FLT because he 1) insists that axioms such as trichotomy and completeness are 'wrong' and 2) he judges FLT from the standpoint of another axiom set. Allowed these liberties, the logician Bertrand Russell proved that he was the Pope. If Escultura's axiom set is consistent, then the mathematics that follows from it is neither more valid nor less valid than the mathematics we learn in school. We can have as many axiomatic systems as we want, each as logically valid as the rest.

Many years ago, New York University physicist Alan Sokal conducted an unusual experiment. In order to parody postmodernism and question the standards academia uses to judge what is fit for publication, he submitted to the prestigious journal Social Text a paper containing absolute nonsense written in academic gobbledygook. His hypothesis was that a journal accepts a paper if it "sounds good," and if it "flatters the editors' ideological preconceptions." Well the journal accepted the paper and how embarrassing it was a year later when Sokal revealed the hoax.

We wish Escultura writes the Manila Times and the “peer-reviewed journals” to say he was just kidding.

It does not speak well for the Manila Times that, without checking facts or consulting the scientific community, it has given front page coverage to a tiring issue that has made the rounds of math and science Internet forums many years ago. The only thing new here is Escultura's exchange of letters with Andrew Wiles. Wiles' letter itself drips with sarcasm, and it is amazing that someone could take it seriously.

EE has taken the Times for a ride, along with the rest of us, if we fall for this feel-good story of a Pinoy professor outwitting intellectual giants of the West.

The Faculty of the Department of Mathematics
University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City

How to Spot Crackpot Theories

During the last 2 weeks, I have been engrossed with the Manila Times endorsement of Mr. Edgar Escultura's claim that he has refuted Andrew Wiles' proof of Fermat's last theorem. Now, I am not a mathematician so I could not criticize Mr. Escultura's theories directly but I tend to recognize bullshit when I see it and the title of the article itself "UP Math prof proves Princeton man wrong" actually raised an alarm with my bullshit meter. Because if the title is correct, then, the internet would have been full of stories about it, I did a search with google, and no trace of this story has surfaced except in the Manila Times.

So I have spent the last 2 weeks trying to convince the Manila Times to "verify" the veracity of their story. I do not know if they will. I hope they do so, but I doubt it.

As an excercise I am linking to some sites that give us, laymen, some guide on how to spot crackpot theories. i leave the reader (if there are any) to decide whether Mr. Escultura's theory fits their description.


Top 10 Ways To Spot A Crackpot

Crank Physics Detection Guide

Russell Turpin's "Characterization of Quack Theories"

The Crackpot Index

Letter to the Manila Times

I wrote the Manila Times a 2nd letter. this will be, I hope, the last. If I cannot convince them, then they deserve the brickbats they are getting. This is the letter.

To: The Editor
The Manila Times

Dear Sir:

First, I would like to thank you for pointing out the many grammatical errors I made in my letter to you dated May 6, 2005. I will try and do better.

Second, I would like to commend you for having the courage to admit that you did not check the veracity and accurateness of the story "UP Math prof proves Princeton man wrong" before publishing it because, as you put it, you "did not have any reason to doubt (Mr. E.E. Escultura) him."

Third, I would like to encourage you to stop this practice of not verifying stories from people you do not have any reason to doubt as this can lead to false or inaccurate stories. The Philippine Press Institute's code of ethics for journalists states that journalists "shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts nor to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis."

I would like to point out that not getting comments from Mr. Andrew Wiles regarding his alleged e-mail reply can "distort the truth by omission". If the alleged e-mail from Mr. Wiles did not really come from Mr. Wiles, then your story attributed to him a position he does not share.

I would also point out that the title of the story "UP Math prof proves Princeton man wrong" distorts the truth from improper emphasis. Mr. Escultura may believe that he is correct but the vast majority of Mathematicians, as can be seen from a google search, do not share his view.Last, I did a quick google search for the names of the mathematicians included in your list and came out with e-mail addresses for 3 of them. I wrote them a letter inquiring whether they agree with Mr. Escultura's claim that he has proven that Mr. Wiles' proof of Fermat's last theorem is false. Mr. George S. Osipenko, Editor-in-Chief of the "Electronic Journal Diffrential Equation and Control Processes" http://www.neva.ru/journal/ answered

" I am not sure that I is a person that you need. I know only that this theorem was proved few yeas ago by the Spanish mathematician. The proof is not so simple and is so big. My object is Dynamical systems and I have weak in the Ferma theorem."

This does not invalidate the list, but this at least questions the accuracy of the number of mathematicians who "acknowledged and/or congratulated" Mr. Escultura.

I hope this convinces you to revisit the story and verify the claims in them.

Thank you.

Roy C. Choco
Blk 1, Lot 3, Sapphire St., Hiys Subd.,
Valenzuela Metro Manila

In reviewing the letter, I saw that I again failed to add at least on "the" and spelled Mr. Escultura's name wrong. When will I ever learn to review my writing before sending it, not after.

Fermat's Last Theorem

I was so upset with the news story by the Manila Times last week that I wrote them a letter.

"I was reading your on-line edition on Thursday (May 5) when I came upon the story about Prof. Edgar Escultura proving the proof advanced by Mr. Andrew Wiles and Richard Taylor on Fermat’s last theorem was incorrect. The story is at the very least incomplete and most probably untrue.

First, according to the theory, the refutation of the proof was published in 1998 and was greeted with much discussion on the Internet. A casual Google search on the terms “proof Fermat’s last theorem” yielded websites that only discuss the proof as presented by Mr. Wiles and Mr. Taylor. No mention has been made regarding Mr. Escultura nor his supposed refutation. Did your reporter, Mr. Rony V. Diaz, even made this kind of cursory search?

Second, according to the story, Mr. Wiles conceded an error regarding his proof and will be reviewing all his proof. But the e-mail was addressed to Mr. Escultura. There is no independent verification of this “supposed” concession was made. Did The Manila Times even tried to contact Mr. Wiles regarding this assertion by Mr. Escultura? Nothing in the article leads me to believe that asking Mr. Wiles nor other mathematicians was even considered.

Third, who even said that Mr. Escultura actually refuted Mr. Wiles’s proof? Who or what body was the source of this story? Whom did this person/body/ experts/ decide that Mr. Escultura was correct? To whom should the readers actually try and validate veracity of the story?

So The Times ran a story from no-one that was verified by nobody. Is this the kind of journalism that The Manila Times practices? I expected more from your paper."

They published the letter together with an editors reply here

According to the reply,

"The source of our information, including the letter of Dr. Wiles, was Dr. Escultura. We did not have any reason to doubt him".

So, the Manila Times will actually print a news story, from anybody, as long as they do not have any reason to doubt him. They will not try to verify the story. They will not dig further for independent confirmation.

Who are then these paragons of truth from whom the Manila Times feel they need not double check? Is Mr. Escultura the only, are there more? What criteria does the Manila Times use to determine who are these founts of wisdom?

How can we then as readers trust the Manila Times? How can we be sure then that the news they print is truthful and factual and not the imaginary submissions of a person that they have no reason to doubt?

I will ask my question again. Is this the kind of journalism the Manila Times practices? It seems so.

UP Math prof proves Princeton man wrong???

The Manila Times Internet Edition | TOP STORIES > UP Math prof proves Princeton man wrong

Nandito na naman tayo, last year, lumabas yung mga kagila-gilalas na adventures ni Faye, isang bata na against all odds ay nanalo saa isang paligsahan, laban sa mga katunggali niyang galing sa mayayamang bayan sa mundo, na wala man lamang tulong sa ating gobyerno.

Ngayon naman, isang balita galing sa Manila Times kung saan ipinagmamalaki nila na ni-refute ng isang teacher sa UP ang proof na ginawa nina Andrew Wiles at Richard Taylor sa Last Theorem ni Fermat.

Ayon sa article, ni publish ni Edgar Escultura, ang kanyang refutation sa proof nina Wiles at Taylor noong 1998 at dahil dito ay nagkaroon ng masigabong diskusyon sa internet tungkol dito.

Ayon pa sa article, nag-concede na ng error si Andrew Wiles kay Ed Escultura.

And yet, kung mag search ka sa internet, wala ka namang makitang diskusyon sa sinasabing refutation sa proof nina Wiles. In fact, kung mag search ka sa google ng "proof fermat's last theorem" katakut takot na pages tungkol sa proof nina Wiles ang ipapakita sa iyo ng google at wala tungkol sa supposedly refutation ni Edgar Escultura.

Kung ganito ang lagay, bakit na-publish ang istorya na ito? Alam ba ng Manila Times ang kanilang ginagawa? Humingi ba sila ng katunayan sa kanilang reporter na si Rony V. Diaz sa report na ito? Ni-email man lang ba nila si Andrew Wiles para makunan nila ito ng comment? Kumuha ba sila ng comment sa ilan pang Mathematicians? Nakalimutan ba ng Manila Times ang kanilang April Fools joke at bumabawi ngayon?

Ganito ba talaga ang standard ng journalism sa Pilipinas?

BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon - Homeopathy: The Test

BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon - Homeopathy: The Test

Seeing that the article about 13 things that do not make sense has homeopathy (4th thing that does not make sense) seeming to be true, I now give you links to experiments that prove that homeopathy is utter bunk.

This links to a description of a BBC program "Horizon" where they tested homeopathy, with the help of James Randi in setting the protocol.

you can also read more about James Randi in his page

http://www.randi.org/

and here are some links on his take on the horizon study

http://www.randi.org/jr/112902.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/010303.html

To repeat homeopathy does not work. Do not be deceived

Baloney Detection Kit

With all the brouhaha about Faye and her story, i thought it would be a good idea for us to review Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit" which should at least give us some inkling if or when we are facing deception. The links below reproduce the links faithfullly and they also link to addtional reading if you wan them.

Operation Clambake

http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html

Skeptics.com

Carlsagan.com