 Good morning, everyone. I'm excited to be here with you. Of course, we can't start a Zoom session without someone asking, can you hear me? Am I clear? You're clear, Alex. Am I clear? Yes, ma'am, you're clear. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, so I'm excited to be here with you for the very first event of the Philosophical Association of the Philippines. And this is World Logic Day. So happy World Logic Day, everyone. It's January 14. So the 40th General Conference of UNESCO proclaimed January 14 during 2019 to be World Logic Day. And as a response, PAP launched this event. And this free event is also in partnership with the University of the Philippines Dilemma and Department of Philosophy. So let me just mention our sponsors. Our sponsors are the following, the Concey Antevinacional, the Philosophy Edicience Human, or the CIPSH, the Department of Philosophy, University of the Philippines Dilemma, and the University Southeast Asian Research Center and Hub, the State of Clara Arciniza, and the Philosophical Association of the Philippines. I would also like to say that those who are watching, let me fix my hair, those who are watching on Facebook can type their questions on the comments, and we will try to answer them as best as we can. So for this event, let us start off with our opening remarks. And to deliver these remarks, we have Dr. Karen Connie Abalos Arendain, the Officer and Charge Chair of the Department of Philosophy, University of the Philippines Dilemma. Good morning, ma'am. Happy World Logic Day, pa. Good morning, Alex, and everyone else joining us on Facebook and to our honored speakers, esteemed lecturers, presenters, and guests. I want to welcome everyone today. Our ability to reason is uniquely human. Thus, and I would argue that this is probably one of the few things that analytics and continental philosophers could agree on. Celebrating World Logic Day today is not only a celebration of an essential branch of our discipline, it is actually a celebration of our humanity. Thus, when the Executive Council of UNESCO officially declared January 14th as World Logic Day, it's not far-fetched to guess that it was because we saw the necessity of why logic should be celebrated in a world full of inconsistency, conflict, and untruth. Now, our privileged philosophical circle has never forgotten this. It has never forgotten logic's prime place. However, as practitioners, philosophers, and philosophy scholars, it may be about time for us to open our rather exclusive discourses to let the utility and everydayness of logic be experienced and lived by others, by everyone. Our society, certainly, needs it now. So in this regard, I would like to thank the Philosophical Association of the Philippines for their efforts that are obviously in line with this vision. In turn, the University of the Philippines Department's philosophy reiterates its continuing commitment to these endeavors, beginning with this right shot. So, I look forward to learning from our lecturers, discussions, and presentations today. Thank you to all those who helped. We're faculty members, to the members of the Philosophical Association of the Philippines for roping us in this event. Thank you to our students who are actively participating in the lecture, in the right shop today. So again, I look forward to our celebration of our logic day today. Thank you very much, Dr. Casey. And that was nice saying that this is also a celebration, a celebration of logic. And for our next part of the program, may I call on Dr. Jeremiah Hoven-Wakin for the launching of the Claro or CENISA logic price and the PAP logic group. So Dr. JJ is the president of the Philosophical Association of the Philippines. Good morning, sir. Good morning, Alex. Thanks for hosting this event. On behalf of the PAP, I would like to welcome you to this World Logic Day 2021 Right Shop. Thank you, Ms. Casey, Dr. Casey, for the fabulous reception to our event. And may this be a start of our long-standing relationship with the PAP and UPD. Now here I'll discuss the CENISA logic price and we will formally launch as well the PAP logic group. Just some background. So Claro or CENISA is arguably one of the best philosophers and logicians that the country has produced. He was born in Sibu in 1927 and we are celebrating as well his 20th anniversary this year. Now he has worked on logic, specificity, motor logic, probability logic, conditional logic throughout his career. And he is, I think, well known for his metaphysical views as well. Now we are privileged to have the family of Dr. CENISA here with us in our event. Now I will formally launch the 2021 CENISA logic price, the Claro or CENISA logic price. So the PAP through the generosity of the estate of Claro or CENISA will award a monetary price for the best paper presented in the World Logic Day Right Shop. So all the paper presenters today, the right shoppers as I call them, the seven of them are part of the pool of candidates for this award. Now this annual price is offered to encourage Filipino scholars to produce quality research in any area of logic. Now the criteria that we have set for the best paper will be originality. That is the novelty of the work. Does it contribute to the existing literature or does it open a new literature in logic? Of course we are also checking for the overall scholarly merit. That is, is it well written? Is it well argued? Is the impact of it? Well, you can experience the impact of it in the literature as well. So those are the three criteria that we'll be using in assessing the best paper for this World Logic Right Shop. After the Right Shop, the paper presenters are given a month to develop their full blown papers. So by February 15, they have to submit their penultimate draft. Then we will announce the winner by March in the Women's Month event of the PAP. Now that's the CINESA award. Thank you again to the State of Colorado or CINESA for this generous award. Now I will formally launch as well the PAP Logic Group. Now it's been a long time since the PAP has endeavored in dealing with logical matters. Hi Sir Gerald. Hi. I'll see you later. So the logic group. So the goal of the PAP Logic Group is to promote excellent research in various areas in logic. Specifically, we're targeting the history of logic, philosophical logic, pure and applied logic, and of course logic education. And all matters logic. Now as some of the activities envisioned by the group is to promote in promoting logic education is webinars such as this one and Right Shops. We're also thinking about logic tutorials via vlogs and media pages. And of course, international collaborative projects like what we'll have today. Now if you are interested in joining this, please email me at my lasalahant. That's the email. And we will formally organize ourselves by the end of the month. Thank you. Thank you very much, Dr. JJ. Okay, I hope a lot of you guys will join the PAP Logic Group. And wouldn't it be nice if during World Logic Day, everyone would be a little bit more logical. Maybe things would be better for all of us. Okay, so, so that's the discussion of the Claro RS and ESA price. Thank you again to the estate and also the the formation of the PAP Logic Group. Okay, and we are we in UPDeliman are very, very glad as well to be part of this, especially with regards to logic education. Okay, now, let's go on to the next part of our program. Okay, I'm excited to hear what our speakers will say about logic education in the Philippines. So this is going to be a roundtable discussion facilitated by Dr. JJ of PAP. And let me just introduce the our participants in the roundtable discussion. So, our first participant is Dr. Alma Espartinez. And Alma Espartinez is a faculty member of De La Salle College of St. Vanille and the ecclesiastical faculty of the University of Santa Tomas. She's a graduate of AB philosophy at the University of Santa Tomas Manila. She finished her MA philosophy and PhD in philosophy at the same university. Alma served as the Vice President for Academic Affairs at the biggest university in Central Luzon in 2016 to 2019. She is a Fulbright scholar in residence awardee in 2010 to 11 where she taught ethics and philosophy of the human person at the Dominican University of California for one year and delivered 23 lectures in 10 different states in the US. Okay, in the, yes, in the US within her Fulbright stint. She's the author of a number of books and articles, and she wrote materials on critical thinking philosophy of the human person and ethics. She also wrote some articles on Carol Voitywa, Emmanuel Levinas, ethical leadership and transhumanism. In 2017 she was chosen as the Commission on Higher Education, Canadian Bureau of International Education fellow or the CHED CBIE who visited some top notch Canadian universities for internationalization initiatives of Philippine Higher Education Institutes. Okay, and we also have another discussant for our RTD, and this one is Sir Gerald P. M. Franco. He is currently an assistant professor in UP Dileman and he finished his BA and MA in philosophy in the CED institution. He teaches courses in logic, intermediate logic, mathematical logic, modal logic and philosophy of logic in UP Dileman. He was the former director of the UP Office of Admissions. Again, I would just like to remind everyone that over on Facebook that you can type your questions on the chat, and yes, we will forward them to our speakers. So let me now turn you over to Dr. JJ. Thank you, Alex. Okay, so we will start our roundtable discussions on logic education in facilities. May I ask Doc Alma and Sir Gerald to open their cameras so that we could start the discussion. By the way, just a personal note, Sir Gerald was my teacher in modal logic, philosophy of mathematics and a lot of logic courses that I took from the University of the Philippines Dileman. Mom Alma is my boss, former boss at St. Scholastica's College. Hello, Mom Alma. Hi, JJ. Hello, Sir Gerald, are you here? Okay, so before we start our discussions on logic, logic education in the Philippines, I would like to ask you, your philosophical background first. So Mom Alma, how did you get into philosophy? Well, I started doing philosophy since 1980 and I majored in philosophy at USC. And then I immediately after that I took up my MA and then my PhD and there are several professors that intrigued me and that was the reason why somehow I really love philosophy. I always say that philosophy is my first love because since then up to now I'm still doing philosophy. Yeah, thanks. But how do you get into logic? Ah, okay. Well, I remember just a little story about my interest in logic now. When I had my logic first year, first semester at USC, I remembered I failed in the middle part of the subject. Almost all of us failed and I said I cannot afford to tell this to my parents because definitely they'll get upset. And so that was my first experience of logic and then our professor told us that, well, if you want to challenge me, you just get a good grade in the final exam. I think I remember if you perfect the exam, I'll give you a 1.0. Of course, that was too difficult for sure. Okay, but then took up the story short. We made it and then that started my interest in logic. Actually, my first assignment when I started teaching was logic. And since then up to now I've been teaching the subject. How about you, sir Gerald? What's your philosophical background? How did you get into philosophy? I started my university studies at the University of the Philippines. Actually, when I was still in high school, I took only two admission tests. I live in the province and I took the test in UP and also in UST and I was admitted in both universities under the BA philosophy program. But then I decided to take BA philosophy in UP during that time primarily because it was cheaper to study in UP. So I took BA philosophy and then after that, well, when I graduated I started teaching and continued my studies and took up an MA in philosophy. And my interest in logic, well, you might say that I became interested in logic because I was also interested very much in mathematics. Mathematics was one of my options also. I decided to take up philosophy because, well, it's, it's, it can compare more subjects than mathematics. Okay, so logic has been one of the core courses in Philippine education. But before we get into the education part, what is logic for you guys? So let's start with sir Gerald. Well, logic, you know, since this is about logic education in the Philippines, you know, we can start with the textbook definition of logic. And in my logic courses, and I can see that a lot of the participants here have been my students, you know, in logic. I start with the textbook definition of logic as basically the analysis, the criticism of reasoning or argument. And as a form of analysis, it is both an art and a science. And I think that when we teach logic, we all, we all, we always present it in that way as an art and at the same time as a scientific discipline. But we need to understand, you know, that logic is the, the, the, the concept of logic is itself a philosophical problem. So that therefore we are, we can, we can revise this particular textbook definition of logic. And my preference really is to think of logic in terms more of the analysis of sentences rather than of arguments. And that way it is, we are able to cover more, more areas, you know, the, the logic there for us the analysis. And I always go back to the origins of logic to the time of the ancient Greek philosophers, particularly Plato and Aristotle. And logic comes from the analytics of Aristotle. It also comes from the dialectic of Plato. Well, we can go back as far as Parmenides, which sometimes also recognized as the founder, father of logic, father Parmenides. So dialectic and analytics, you know, so the combination of the two, you know, and perhaps by focusing on sentences, rather than on arguments, you know, we are able to unify, you know, all these ideas that we find, you know, in ancient Greek philosophy about logic and subsequently in medieval philosophy and also in contemporary philosophy, symbolic logic. That's interesting. Yeah, Sergio, that's interesting because most textbooks as you have said concentrate on the idea of logic as the analysis of arguments. So what you're proposing, at least in your in what you have said is that it's not only the analysis of arguments, but the sentences contained in the arguments. Yeah, it's also, it's also a basic theorem in logic, you know, that all argument forms are debatable to sentential forms. Right, right. So that therefore the analysis of sentences would therefore be much more encompassing than that of arguments. Right. So we would be able to understand better the flow of the dialectic if we think of it in terms of discourse, made up of sentences. Just plain arguments. Yeah, for MSc is leading to conclusion. How about you mom Alma, so what is logic for you. Yeah, thanks JJ know. There's not only one true logic. And there's no single formalization that will stand as the logic of all thought and discourses. There are as many tools for cutting jobs like we use knife blade acts as there are many tools for reasoning. And as there is not only one logic, there is likewise not only one definition of logic, a great variety of logical systems we know exists and there are areas of overlap and this logical systems historically and up to now have modified other systems we know that sometimes complementing often competing at best improving at worse excluding one another. The definition of logic is nurtured by the many years logic has guided me in my philosophizing. So I define logic as a formal theory of reasoning with precision and elegance and you know there's sophistication and beauty in the process of reasoning that addresses theoretical questions concerning what is the issue what is the problem, as well as practical questions concerning both what ought to be done, and what is a sound argument. In one word, I say it's a reasonableness. So logic is the reasonableness of once thought or action. Historically, we can say all the are Aristotelian logic, but the traditional propositional and then the predicate logic, but then the logically, we would have formal or informal logic. So, I am more trained in the traditional, although when I taught in the seminary I began teaching the propositional logic and a part of the predicate logic. In other words, discipline is mathematics, mine is really the traditional one also my concentration is on that one. Regarding formal logic and informal logic, they say that formal logic is the real logic and informal logic is not a true logic because it's more on semantics. But I think that there can be an interplay between formal logic and informal logic and historically we can still do the traditional and then the propositional and the predicate logic. Now let's think about traditional logic here. So are we talking about the Aristotelian syllogistic logic when we talk about traditional logic? Actually, there's a misnomer there. They say that there's no such thing as Aristotelian logic. It's just Aristotle's logic because much of Aristotle's logic were improved by principles, by the Stoics, by the philosophers after Aristotle. So there are lots of revisions already in the Aristotle's logic. That's why they say that it's better that we call it Aristotle's logic than Aristotelian. But of course we're used to calling it Aristotelian or the traditional. The traditional I think even covers now the proposition logic. That's why I didn't say traditional, it just doesn't cover Aristotle. It covers even the improvement done in the mid 15th, 16th century, and even the 19th century. Okay, let's go into our main topic that is logic, education and facilities. So what is, how do we teach logic now here in our country? Let's start with Sir Gerald. Well of course I go back to my contention that perhaps we should be concentrating more on the analysis of propositions rather than the analysis of arguments. Well of course I agree that there is this distinction between traditional logic and modern logic. They can easily be incorporated of course when we teach logic. And that's, I believe, how I usually teach it. And this can be affected by one of the participants here, a combination of propositional logic and predicate logic, both of which are traditional because propositional logic came from the Stoics. And but I also go back to Aristotel and the last, just last semester, the course that I thought focused more on Aristotel's prior analytics. And I want to go back to that. And going back to Aristotel, we find that only the theory of syllogisms, but also the use of basic modes of reasoning, improving the syllogisms, like the argument that we call the reductial ad absurdum argument. That's what we call it now. Reduction to absurdity. Of course, it's a mode of reasoning that is used by mathematicians. It's also what we call indirect proof. And this agrees with my contention that maybe we should be focusing more on arguments because then the focus of logic will be more on consistency, logic as the consistency of beliefs. And of course that will touch also on the ethics of thinking, because we might say that there is that consistency imperative whenever we think we try our best to not be consistent. And when somebody is stating something that is contradictory, then we need to correct that or at least we need to initiate a discussion. So it's more on the consistency of beliefs. And we find that in Aristotel in his use of, well, the reductial ad absurdum argument. And that goes back to the dialectic. So yes, maybe we focus more on formal techniques, especially in UP. We focus more on the systems of logic, formal logic. But yes, these are tools that we use for, well, as I put it also, cutting up things, because dialectic in the Platonic sense is basically cutting up things along their natural joints. So we can like butcher, who knows how to cut up reality along its natural joints. And that means sentences. So how do we cut up sentences? So that is also my focus in teaching logic. How do we cut up sentences? There are complex sentences. And when we cut up complex sentences, then we have propositional logic. And when we cut up simple sentences, then we have predicate relational logic. So it's basically cutting up. And by cutting up in this way, we are able to go back also to the original sense, I think, of logic as dialectic. So we need to keep that in mind when we teach logic. It's not just maybe techniques, not just systems of logic, laws that we can use for making deductions, inferences, conducting arguments. But also determining the consistency of our beliefs. And this is so that we can continue our analysis, our discussions. Dialectic is in the traditional sense a continuous discussion of ideas. It's more of the exchange of ideas. Yes, that's why it's expressed as a dialogue in Plato. Platonic dialogues, it's discussion starting with definitions, an exchange of ideas. And that way we are able to clarify our thoughts, our concepts, and we are able to arrive at better definitions, better conceptions of things. So cultivating that, and I think that is something that is missing. In logic education here. In all the education, political discourse, and the likes. We need to inculcate that, I guess, in the students that logic is continuous discussion, philosophy is an examination of our beliefs, self examination. Right. So how about you Alma, how do you teach logic, and what is logic education for you. Okay. Now, traditional logic range supreme for over many decades in the Philippine education, Philippine general education, and in some universe or most universities when you ask them what kind of logic are you having. What kind of logic are you teaching most universities would still teach the traditional logic for other universities like UP I think they're more analytical philosophy. And so, basically most of universities would still do the traditional logic. And I think that kind of trend mimics the initial search of interest in Aristotelian logic in prior analytics and in categories. Now, there's the waning of interest in favor of a new logic, the symbolic logic. It gained influence in and support from the Philippine universities in the early 90s, largely because perhaps that's my opinion that there is the surging of the professional courses, such as engineering, computer science, computing and other mathematics related courses. And so a lot of colleges still have curricula that would chase after what they think most business want, and what would be the next hot major. So when there's the surging of elect of engineering courses, let's teach symbolic logic propositional logic predicate logic. And then in a blink of an eye when Chad mammal number 20 was released to be implemented in 2018 logic was surprisingly dislodged. Now you see it now you don't and it's gone without clear explanation. So that's the kind of logic education that we have now logic has been dislodged in the general education curriculum. And so my take on that is that to remove logic in the curriculum as a must take first year class is a big academic for it is like removing once exoskeleton because I think logic is a foundational discipline. And as Chad removed from the general education logic or critical thinking which has been its mainstay for decades, the general education offering has been streamlined to 18 core subjects, although it's, it's beautiful to know that there are still universities who retained logic in the form of creative and critical thinking and one college is the college where I am in now the College of State be nailed the teachers, critical and creative thinking under the leadership of our chair, Professor Gonzalez and so that's beautiful because at least it's it becomes an institutional requirement because we cannot do away with logic, whatever form it may be, you may do it like critical during the formal probability or creative like using models of argumentation as long as you teach them how to be logical. And one thing that is important because I see here from one of the questions in the chat not that we have to make sense of what we teach know the kind of logic that we teach that it should be something that is valuable to our students so something that can actually help them. And I think that's a kind of logic education that we have to have in our country. Yeah, thanks mama but we touch on a very important point. So since the 2018 2016 the new curriculum tells us that we don't need logic in college anymore. But that's what they say. But before that, we have logic courses as part of the curriculum across the board so anyone who's in the university need to have logic. But let's get into that the history a bit. So early on about the early 1900s when academic or university life was being established we have logic as part of the curriculum. This is the part of the Spanish heritage perhaps. What do you think is it part of the Catholic training because you have medieval thinking that you have logic rhetoric dialectic as part of the curriculum. Is that the case here in the Philippines that's why we have logic then. I'm not really sure of that why we have logic, because sometimes it's not really called logic but simply critical thinking. Maybe back then when I think it's more on professional education because even in the early 1950s 1940s they would concentrate on professional education. So it depends on the kind of professional course that you have and it's if it's more mathematically related. So they would say that there really is a need for logic because somehow they equate logic with mathematics and for for us we know. In any way that logic is not mathematics logic is concerned with mathematics but professional courses back then were generally mathematics oriented and so perhaps they saw the needs that there should really be logic. Okay, so we have viewers from Marawi hello and Pangasinan and from other parts of the Philippines wherever you see her. And we have students from USD and UP watching you guys or students on FB. Mr. General just give us a background of logic in UP because we have we heard stories that UP is the home of logic here in the Philippines but what is how did your teachers each logic way way back. Well, maybe a specific style of doing logic, you know, more than anything else. And that's because of because the analytic tradition has well been in place in UP for quite some time. I think this goes back to the time of Dr. Pasquale Ricardo Pasquale who according to stories was a friend of Bertrand Russell and was a student of Bertrand Russell. And so when he came back he wrote a book on logic patterned after the Principia Mathematica of Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead. And I think that started the tradition. So we have a mathematical logic in UP and apart from that of course we have a model logic and all these other types of formal logic. And yeah, I think we did model logic together. Yes. So that's how we have been teaching logic in UP at least that's the tradition. But at the same time, I try to show the relevance of logic to the students. I saw that in one of the comments there that the students need to see the relevance of logic in their daily lives. I think what we need for the students to do is to examine themselves, to examine their own beliefs. Because I think if you are able to philosophize or think deeply enough, you will be able to see the importance of logic you're thinking. So like in my introductory courses in logic, I start with logic puzzles. For example, maybe not many are fond of logic puzzles. I try to show how such problems can be solved by even the most basic principles that we use in logic like this jumping syllogism, modus tollens. So if we think deeply enough, then we will be able to see these principles operating in the way we think. This jumping syllogism is basically reasoning by elimination. Modus tollens, that's what we use when we disconfirm something, whether it be a scientific theory or an assumption. So you make predictions on the basis of that. And then if the prediction turns out wrong, then that means that your initial assumption or your theory is wrong. So we can see these principles of logic operating in the way we think. And sometimes I think we only need to show students how to think deeply enough about their own ideas and they will see these principles at work. So these are formal principles. And at the same time, maybe one way of showing the relevance of logic is to show its connection not only to arguments. Maybe I just add this comment that maybe the reason why our leaders, our educational leaders, political leaders and the likes are not fond of logic is because they are not really fond of discussions. They are not fond of criticism, critical thinking and the likes. And also because perhaps the thinking is that logic is primarily about argumentation. They don't like arguments. Usually our leaders, they don't want discussions. They've already made their decisions and they don't want to entertain any. That's a good observation. So there is no room for critical thinking. I go back to that concern with consistency. So it's not just about well arguments. Perhaps we also need to show the connection of logic, the importance of logic to computability, computing technology, computing theory, artificial intelligence. And if I am not mistaken, that's the prime motivation for establishing a world logic today. I looked at the web page and it started last year. Actually two years ago. During this day because of the importance of Kurt Gidele and Alfred Tarski. But why are they important? Are they important because of their analysis of arguments? So logic is much more than that. So perhaps we need to show to students also how logic produced computers in the first place. And therefore the internet and therefore artificial intelligence. So that's one part of it. It's not just about argumentation. It's not just about the analysis of statements. Maybe we also need to have something like an appreciation part in logic. Logic appreciation. What is the importance of logic in our daily lives? What is the importance of logic in the development of well the technologies that we can play without nowadays? So I think a lot of students still cannot see that connection. And maybe sometimes, yeah, speaking from experience, I am not going to mention any specific person. Because I had a teacher before who mentioned that he or she has been teaching logic for a long time. But still can't see the relevance of the rules of the internet. Apart from that, I think we need to show the relevance of logic. Not only to argumentation, criticism, but also the development of, as I've said, computing technology. And perhaps that way we are also able at the same time to take control of these technologies. If we just let these technologies develop, maybe without our contributions, then eventually they will be able to take control of our lives. I think that's already happening with social media and the likes. So it's something like a logic appreciation course. Perhaps you could have that again, right? It's a different course, but a spark of the logic courses that we teach. By the way, we have viewers from Ilo Ilo, Isabella, Agusan, and Naga. Hello guys. Let's go back to Doc Alma's point about the shared memorandum regarding logic. First, let's speculate. What was the justification for letting go of logic? I think they want logic to permeate all courses without having a standalone subject, which is logic. So since they want to streamline the GE program, they deleted logic or critical thinking, because they would say all professors would be teaching logical thinking anyway. So there's no need for a logic as a course. But I think that was, as I said, a major faux pas, sorry for the chat people who might be watching. Because I think that, okay, because there should really be a standalone course. Whatever kind of logic it may be, be it traditional or propositional or predicate. That's why I think that our thing is very good here now because Dr. Gerald is focused on the mathematics. I am on the semantic side of logic. And so it depends what to remove it, to exclude it in the GE curriculum. I think that is really a major error in the general education curriculum. And if I may also say, Nona, I'm not really sure if I am entitled to any option at all about what sort of logic should be taught and how. But I can say, Nona, a cook may be a good cook, but may be awful at teaching people how to cook. Because applying it to logic, it's one thing to do logic and it's another thing to teach logic, whatever kind of logic it is. And I think, Nona, I suggest that our approach should be both substantive and pedagogical. Pedagogical in the sense that we know logic, that will be our framework, but we should not set aside the substance, the discipline. While we do justification of our arguments like applying the loss of inference to a broad base of judgment in an adequately informed perspective, I think we cannot afford to set aside the substantive disciplinary base that is pertinent to that subject matter. Because I think that logic without substance or substantive content is empty and substantive content without logic, without framework would also be blind. Say, for example, if a logic professor applies the formal proof of validity to real life situations. Say police brutality in the Philippines. And most little about police brutality in the Philippines, that logic professor will be left with the theme and perhaps misleading analysis, because students would still want that logic be relevant. Or if a logic professor will do analogical reasoning by determining whether or not the US president and the Philippine president are relevantly similar. The logic professor may not know enough historical and political facts to really judge the strength of the inductive analogy that professor could only give a very shallow analysis of the argument at hand. For these topics would require apart from the pedagogical reasoning substantive analysis of the issue. My point is, we cannot simply say, well, if A then B, A, therefore B, we cannot simply do modus ponens here. There should really be an interplay of the substance and pedagogy. I like that point about we need to think about the substance of our argument as well. I'm just concerned about the validity of things. Now, here's another question that before we get into the my question for those who guys who have questions, please put them in the Q&A box, and we will entertain them after the discussion. For those who are viewing us on FB, please, if you have a question, just write them in the chat, and we will try to answer them as well. Now, let's go to improvements. We're touching on some of your suggestions on how to improve logic education here in the Philippines. But let's be more specific. So what's the idea here? How do we improve logic education in our country? Let's start with Mama Alma. Bring back logic in the curriculum. That's simple. And I think if there will be a revision of the G curriculum, I think our organization must be in the front for front to fight for the inclusion of whatever form of logic. It may be. And I think now, for the non-film majors that subjects are not mathematically oriented, perhaps we can do the basic one, the traditional, but for those that are math or logic in the seminary should also include the higher form of the formal probability in the graduate school. But I think for an institutional requirement, I think there should really be this logic. Perhaps we may not call it really logic. No, perhaps you may call it critical and creative because there should really be an interplay of this creative and critical. Usually we associate logic with the critical thinking, but perhaps we might be relegating to the side of the creative part, which our students might also be needing. So I think a little creativity in conceptualizing logic to make it more relevant to our students. Because they might say, well, we just add three units and I'll remember if I may say this, I remember when I taught symbolic seminarians in one seminary in Kesson City. You know, they ask me, Miss, you're asking us to give us the formal proof of validity, justify the formal proof of validity. And they ask me, Miss, if we are already priests, would we be using this formal proof of validity? What else would this be when we are already changing the bread into the body of Christ and the wine into the blood of, you know, and it may not be perhaps bad teaching of logic. But perhaps our students should see really the relevance of why we are teaching what we are teaching. And I think if only we make sense of that, they would see its relevance as well. Okay, thanks, ma'am Alma. We have viewers from Ilegan, Sibu, Buhol, and Bulacan right now. How about Sir Gerald, how do we improve logic education in the Philippines? Well, I agree with ma'am Alma. At the same time, we need to highlight one particular aspect of logic. Not only does it teach us how to think, but it also teaches us how to think about thinking. It's a form of thinking about thinking itself. It's self-reflection, as it were. I think the thinking is that, well, in the other courses, students anyway learn how to think logically. But that's different. In mathematics, yes, you learn how to think logically, but there is no self-examination. In mathematics, you learn about systems of mathematics, and so therefore you learn how to think in a specific way. But in logic, we are taught how to analyze the way we think. So I think that is something that cannot be found in the other courses, that supposedly teaches how to think. That is what is needed. And I think going back, I go back to that idea of the dialectic, because it is an examination of our belief, an examination of thinking. So we are not just simply thinking there, but thinking about the way we think. And so if you were to ask me how to improve the law of logic education, well, that's one, highlighting that particular aspect of logic. Not just the analysis of arguments, as I said earlier, but the analysis of propositions, the concern with consistency. And therefore it also points to an ethical aspect of it. There is an ethical aspect of thinking that we need to be consistent when it comes to thinking about things. So maybe just to mention something about what ma'am, how am I saying more about the piece. Maybe it's really more about consistency. I think when we think about Jesus Christ and the Knights of Noah, I think there is still that concern with consistency. Which is of course reflected in the way we do formal groups and things like that. At any rate, so if you ask me how to improve the way we teach the language, underscoring that important aspect of logic as reflective. Thinking about thinking, expanding its concern, not only with arguments, but also with consistency. Also what I said about the appreciation, learning about the significance of logic to our modern life, contemporary life, particularly its connection with computing. And maybe it's history. Sometimes when we teach a course like logic as a science, we tend to forget it's history. Of course that's what the philosophers of science like Thomas Cooner are saying. We don't teach history of science to scientists, but I guess in logic, there is a need to keep on going back to the history of the subject matter. That's why I also go back to Aristotle and the ancient philosophers. So we need to highlight that particular aspect also of logic. Logic as a philosophical discipline and therefore the history of logic can also have an important contribution towards our understanding of logic and therefore the significance also of the techniques that we teach in logic. So it is by consulting the history of logic that, for example, I think we can find the most important role of logic in world affairs. As I tell my students, we find it leads the belief that the key to world peace is logic. Because after everything that said and done, we could just sit down and tabulate, right? Because we formalize everything. Okay, so just have a dialogue. Dr. JJ, is it okay if we raise the volume because I'm having a difficulty listening to Dr. Gerald? Perhaps we can increase the volume because there's also the question here if we may. I cannot hear the content of what Dr. Gerald is saying because of the low volume. Okay, sorry, Gerald, please increase your volume. I'll try to address that. I hope that it's okay now. It's okay now, thanks. Okay, so before we get into the questions, because there are some questions already coming in from Facebook, for you guys as well, if you have questions, please put them in the Q&A box or if you want to join the discussion, please raise your hand and we will give you access to the discussion. Okay, so before getting into that, finally, if you are planning a syllabus on logic, what would be the content of that syllabus? Mama Alma. I would have a bias, of course. That's all right. I would have a bias. I would really follow the current kind of thinking that we're doing here in our college, again, in College of St. Benilde. Okay, that's a free advertisement and promotion. Okay, so what we're doing there is we're doing both creative and critical thinking and that's still logic because there's still the formal probability. That's why, again, listening to some of the questions here and all that, most students would really want material logic rather than formal logic, but I think there should really be an interplay of both because we cannot just say material logic, discard the formal logic. There's no need for us to choose between narrative between formal logic and material logic or formal logic and informal logic for that matter. So I think if you are to revise the curriculum, PAP can initiate on the kind of critical thinking or creative thinking that we can use. But I suggest that we use both because for general education, I'm not talking of the film majors. I'm not talking of the kind of logic in the graduate school, but at least for the general education because this is actually what we, what our students need. That's correct. Even during the time of Aristotle, logic is considered a tool, an organ on that's why it is considered an organ on and even the term organ on was not Aristotelian, it came from the medieval philosopher. It's a tool. And so we use it really as a tool so that the students will be able to be guided because logic is an art. It guides us in correct reasoning. And so if we lose it, students would just be thinking in any way without a certain rigor. And so there's still really a need that it be combined for the formal and informal or the critical and the creative in order for the students to find logic, something meaningful. How about you, sir general? What's the content of the syllabus, a basic logic? I will not really be revising it much. Perhaps there is just a need to highlight certain aspects of it. As I mentioned earlier, the appreciation part, critical thinking, the role of history, the importance of history. And at the same time, we need to perhaps understand the role of the technical part, the significance of the technical part of logic. I believe that it also helps in sharpening our mental faculties. I think that by performing those kind of exercises, then we are able to sharpen our minds. And that in itself is already an important contribution. Of course, if we keep on asking for the practical relevance, we might actually even miss the point. Just like in the case of mathematics, we make a distinction between pure mathematics and the other more practical aspects of mathematics. I believe that many mathematicians study mathematics or many students study take-up mathematics because they want to be able to get good jobs and the likes. They want to be able to answer practical questions and the likes. But there is also a part of mathematics which is known as pure mathematics. And I think logic is closer to that. You don't do it for any practical purpose. It arises out of the pure desire for understanding. Well, maybe there is that science part about formal logic. But when we do mental gymnastics, as it were, sharpening our minds, and maybe we can appreciate that better as we grow older. And I appreciate that very much when, for example, I became a director of the Office of Admissions. I was not a data scientist. I was not a mathematician. I mean, by profession. I was not a statistician. I was not a psychologist. Nevertheless, I believe I was able to make my contributions to that particular office. And it's because of my training in logic, mathematical logic, specifically. So it's something that contributes to the development of the mind, as it were, the philosopher. And looking for its more practical aspects. We just might miss its importance. I remember the textbook that we used before when I was still a student in philosophy 11, the logic course. It starts with that story about somebody asking for a justification of logic. And I think that's what our leaders are asking from us. Justify logic. But how can you justify logic? No, I mean, you just need to point out that by asking that question, the person already sees the importance of logic by asking for a justification. There is no need to answer that question. The racing of the question itself already shows that this person knows or appreciates the understanding of logic. We only need to point that out. Maybe he doesn't know it. He's not aware of it. I think a lot of us are like that. We think logically without us being aware of it. And I saw that in the statement during the inauguration of this World Logic Day. A lot of us think logically most of the time, but we are not aware of it. So maybe we just need to make the students aware of that. All along they are actually using modus colens, disjunctive syllogism, without them being aware of it. They are distributing the middle and the likes, without them being aware of it. Okay, so let's proceed to our Q&A portion. Let's start with a question from the Q&A box from Augusto Orlando Bartolome. So it seems that logic is losing prominence and there is an effort to remove it as a separate subject in gen ed or general education. Because the product is not immediately seen compared to other courses, the direct outputs like hospitality management or tourism. So in your opinion, is this way of thinking of a product of the present curriculum that is based on outcomes? The outcomes based education, is this a good way of thinking about education? So what do you think for any other panelists? I was also about to comment on that on the outcomes based education. Again, there might be some chat again officials listening to us. Again, personally, there might be something wrong also with our OBE, because it's a process of telling our students what to learn, what to achieve, what to think and what not to think. It's constricting. So I think there should really be a review of the kind of education that we are having, because we might not really getting the meat of the kind of education that we want to give our students. So when we don't allow our students to find meaning in what they're doing, things don't make sense. And therefore, if we constrict them, if we limit them, they might not appreciate life, because logic should permeate in all our being. And if we fail to do that, we fail as professors. Okay, thanks, Mama. This is for Sir Gerald. Since we are following OBE, again, the outcomes based education, the ideal is to develop a syllabus relative to the program outcomes of a certain course. Now if this is the case, then the content would really be different in each program, for instance, engineering and IT may take more of modern logic and traditional health sciences may focus more on induction than deduction. So how would you have general education logic in that size? Well, there is really no conflict between traditional logic and modern symbolic logic. I think that is something that's quite clear. So when we reexamine traditional logic, the logic of Aristotle, there is really no conflict, I guess. And if we design a course for engineers or mathematicians, then there will be aspects of traditional logic there also. I'll be maybe expressed in a more formal manner, in a language that is more familiar maybe to the students of engineering and mathematics, because I think because of their training from grade school and high school, they're already quite comfortable with the way of thinking using symbols, equations, and the likes, that is those who take up mathematics and engineering. And precisely, I think they take up the subjects, because they were very good at that kind of thinking. So again, there is no conflict. And we think of logic as a tool. Yes, it's a tool for mathematicians. It's a tool for engineers. So it's unavoidable that we include the logic portions there. But is this really the kind of logic that we want to inculcate in a well, a philosopher? I would just like to make the comment about maybe the way we design courses nowadays, OBE and the likes, during the medieval ages, I mean, when universities were invented in the first place, they designed the liberal education as the education for a free man. Not somebody who is going to be a tradesman, a merchant, maybe an artisan, who will follow a more vocational education. But maybe we should not lose track of that, the idea of liberal education and what its point is. It's an education for free men. But maybe nowadays, we don't really want that kind of education, at least maybe the political leaders. We don't want that kind of education. Why? Because a liberal mind is a dangerous mind. Because a liberal mind doesn't just simply follow. So there, regarding the relevance of logic, I think I've already answered that previously. Yeah, thanks, sir Gerald. Here's something from Jerry Temoteo. So it's from Facebook. I just mentioned earlier that there are different tools of logic. So you have propositional logic, traditional logic. So is it right to think that we need to think and plan what kind of logic to teach? So what kind of logic should we teach, given that you have different types of logic or tools of logic available? Like what I said before, it depends on the kind of thinking we want to develop among our students. My position has always been that we combine both formal, informal, traditional, propositional, substantive, pedagogical, syntax, and semantics. All of this in combination, as long as our students might find sense in what we're teaching them. Because they might say, yes, we strictly follow the formal probability, but what then? They might ask what then? We might have the skeleton, but if we miss the substance, they might not see the utility, the relevance of teaching the subject. So I will not propose the kind of logic, but I will propose that it be a kind of creative thinking. By analogy, I would say that critical thinking is more of you against that. This is a good venue for that kind of discussion. And then the creative is something that is in itself creative. It might even be an inductive reasoning that is through seeking rather than through preserving. We always associate logic as a kind of deductive argument that is truth preserving. It's already there. You can't go wrong as long as you follow the rules because there are laws of inference. But if we allow our students to move out of the box and seek other venues, they might be able to be surprised on what they are able to find. Which is contrary to the OBE because it limits also the competencies. So I'm not proposing any kind of particular logic, but I'm proposing that it be thinking. If I may also say, it's possible to be logical without thinking. Okay, that's interesting. I hope it is. That's an interesting point. You could have logic without thinking. So I think John Paul Ong's question was also answered because his question is about what will be the appearance of logic in the curriculum. Let's have another question from John Paul Ong. John Paul Ong, he has a question. This is coming from FD again. For Mom Alma, if that is the case for your Catholic institution like in ours, what will you recommend? Especially everybody will appreciate the art of logic. So the art aspect of logic. What would you recommend? If we define logic as an art, then let it be creative. Okay, so there's a follow up question about the creative aspect here. Oh, by the way, we have viewers from Australia. Hello. So there is questions regarding for Mom Alma again. So what is creative, the creative view of logic? Can you expound on this one? Yes. Thank you for that question because that will also allow me to say something about the different methods that we use in creative thinking. We actually use the three models of argumentation in creative thinking. I know most of you would be familiar with the tool mean with red and frisco. But I usually use the tool mean method by Stephen told me on that you have your claim, you have your warrant backing reason. You know, it may not follow the formal proof of validity but still would lead us to an argument that may be qualified as valid or even more valid. The formal proof of the tool mean method or even the, what is this? The four lenses of innovation by Rowan Gibson. You know, when we teach this, the four lenses of innovation, we tell our students this would be the different innovative steps that we can use. And there is also like a rigidity in it because you have to follow steps and they would say, hey, this is the first time we heard about this and that developed our kind of thinking. And, you know, when you hear that from our students, you would feel that, hey, there's value in teaching creative thinking really not. So there you can have the four lenses of innovation, creative problem solving, and then the very interesting now is the design thinking. The design thinking is what we ask is where we ask our students to come up with an innovative project, putting all together all the concepts in logic that they studied and they come up with a unique idea that sells. At the end, we are not just asking them to think logically, we're asking them also to be incubators because they design project that would be valuable to society using all the different kinds of frameworks that they have learned in creative and critical thinking. Yeah, thanks mom. So you're thinking about creative thinking here in terms of the tool main model and the design thinking model. That's interesting. So here's something from the Q&A box. So it seems we're too late the hero when we have no more logic in our curriculum. So what is our move so that we could bring back logic in the curriculum? I think that's a question for everyone here. But do you have any thoughts? Dr. JJ, I think it's not yet late. I think it's not yet late because I meant for critical thinking if only we can be innovative because there are only 24 units of GE and there are still nine units. Lee Wei where you can include this kind of thinking and we appreciate universities and colleges that make use of this innovative strategy to develop in our students this creative and critical thinking. As I may also say now Dr. JJ, there's also one university that makes use of big history. That's it at Holy Angel University, big history that covers and students are making use of critical and creative thinking. That creative, that kind of creativity we should include in our curriculum. This is for Sir Gerald coming from... Sir Gerald from Joseph Ramcital. Is it possible for people such as DDS and boomers to be still capable of learning and adapting logic in terms of social media and in today's discussion? Well, maybe we can try to do it the way Socrates did it in the Socratic dialectic where we try to find some common ground and then we start from there. And as I was saying earlier, perhaps we need also to underscore this particular aspect of logic. Logic as dialectic, the need for discussion, the need for the exchange of ideas. Because if we were to simply restrict ourselves to the analysis of arguments just like the presentation of the informal fallacies, the fallacies whether formal or informal. See the way I think about this informal fallacies is that they're really invalid arguments, but rather that they are dialectic stoppers. When somebody presents an ad hominem argument, for example, that means that that person is not willing anymore to discuss. That person is not willing to debate anymore. So maybe, yes, we can point out that he or she is committing a fallacy, making a bad argument, but at the same time, we need to try to find a common ground so that we can continue the discussion. So that would be my answer to that particular question, try to find a common ground. No, and no person is in a way beyond salvation as it were. I'm sure that that's funny by trying to understand these people, we will be able to understand another motivations and that's where we make our starting point. This is for both of you. There's a good question from Mary Jane Mendoza from again from the Facebook chat. Now logic helps you to organize your thoughts with the help of logical rules, but it does not exclude those who have no formal training in logic, not to be logical or organizing their thoughts as well. So logic definitely will enhance the reasoning skills, which is often abuse by those who have mastered the art of reasoning. I think the question here is learning logic also would give you the tools to manipulate other people. Is that the case here? We have like logic as a tool, it's like a knife, and like what has been said so many times about the knife, it can be used to save a life, or it can also be used to kill. So logic can also be used in that way. Well in the history of philosophy we go back to the Sophists, Plato criticized them precisely because he said that they made the weak argument strong and the strong argument weak. So I think logic can also be used in that way, and of course it isn't being used in the right way. So that's why I insist on the dialectical aspect of it, trying to dig deeper as it were so that we can find the common grounds. And they will themselves provide the rules that they will be following in their way of thinking, and we only need to show that these rules are consistent. How about you ma'am Alma, the question is whether you could use logic to manipulate other people in malevolent ways? You know Dr. JJ, there's so much irrationality going on now in our world now, and people don't know anymore how to distinguish good from bad reasoning. And I think the palace of logic is really good reasoning. It has been defined as the art of good reasoning. And so when we intend to manipulate, which you know the Sophists did back then in order to win debates, I think that is not really the kind of logic that we want to teach our students. Never is logic meant to manipulate, never it is meant to humiliate one another, pretending that we have the truth and others don't know the kind of logic that we really want to inculcate and teach our students is that which will lead us to good reasoning. That's why the practicality of logic is that we would be able to answer what ought to be done and what sound argument is. Okay, so here's another question from one of the panelists here. Good morning, everyone. May I ask the speakers to the discussion touch on improving the teaching of logic courses. Can you share some of the difficulties you encountered in teaching logic in online platforms, given the kind of setup that we have nowadays. So how do you handle online teaching of logic? Sorry, Gerald. Well, the main difficulty is Internet connection and maybe the number of students. I think one very good way of teaching logic online would be in a tutorial manner, maybe one on one or maybe as few students as possible and also that you can also guide them if they commit some mistakes. So the problem here really is that with this kind of setup, it is really difficult to see how the students are doing it. Unlike when you are inside a classroom, you can take a peek at what they are doing, especially when they were given some problems to solve. Because a teacher can learn not only from the right answers, but from the wrong answers. You can diagnose as it were what is wrong, what kind of mistakes are being done by students and maybe what kind of rules they are following and the likes. And in this kind of setup, online learning, it's more difficult to see that. So you really have to devote more time to that. But of course, the students themselves are facing their own difficulties, not only with the learning stuff. That's why I think they are unable to devote also time to really learn more from the teacher. So another is that the question and answer part is sometimes it's no longer there or there's no longer time for that or maybe students are more hesitant to raise questions during this online setup. No, so we're trying to deal with it, of course, but at the same time, I can see some students succeeding in that kind of setup. Okay, how about you Mama Alma, so how do you teach? Yes, Mama Alma. Okay. Yes. Yeah. And in a trauma-induced critical pedagogy that we have now since we're doing online teaching, I think creativity really comes into the picture. It's really needed. You know, I learned that some people, some students are creative, others are productive. Students and even our professors are either creative or productive. And when we notice, what we notice is that people who are creative thinkers become less productive. And when people are productive, they become less creative. And so productive people accomplish their tasks in a systematic way because they're really productive, no? And they follow the formal logic, whatever kind of formal probability that they follow, they are productive. They make steady and measurable progress, they make effective use of time, and our students submit to their dropbox, that's what we call the dropbox where students submit older assignments even before the deadline. But you know, creative people and even creative people, students and professors alike need some time and space. And these are the people who procrastinate and it's hard for them to systematize things. It's hard for them to follow certain rules because they're really creative. And it takes a while for them to get the right mix of skills and content. But you know when they do, these creative people, when they come up with their insights, you'll find out they'll submit the best answers only if you give them enough time. And so even with professors, no, are really creative thinkers. We cannot give them the KRAs or the KPIs because they don't work that way. And it's the same thing with our students. Just allow them to think. If you give all the things that they will be submitting from day one, they would know that in the end this is what they're going to do. If our students are creative, give them time to come up with novel ideas and you'll find out what kind of papers they would have, really insightful. And that's what I discovered in online teaching. And if I may say no, I'm really enjoying the online teaching right now because I'm discovering more students who are really creative and critical thinkers. And even professors that are really creative and critical for that matter. I like the point about, you know, you could be creative in teaching your courses via online and you will discover that some students like this kind of environment, the online environment. But here's the follow-up question to that by Mariel Zosa. So we are considering about critical thinking and creative thinking. How about care thinking? So she gave a background. So care thinking is we need to be devoted to the emotional aspect of thinking as well. So how do we do that? How do we incorporate that in logic education? Any thoughts, Sir Gerald? Incorporating the care thinking. Yeah, care thinking. Is that the way we should understand, you know, care thinking, you know, taking into consideration the emotions of the students, you know. Well, of course, one way of dealing with that would be by prior to maybe introducing, you know, the techniques that we employ in logic would be to try to understand, you know, the concerns, you know, of students, you know, so that we would be able to address better, you know, their concerns, you know, and maybe their emotions, you know, towards this particular subject matter. Well, of course, there is the thinking, you know, that logic is, in a way, like mathematics, somewhat cold, you know. It does not make any, it does not allow for any room for emotions. I think from a more pathological aspect, yes, we can incorporate that, you know, by becoming more attentive, you know, to the needs of students, especially during this time, you know, I started my classes by telling my students, you know, that maybe the real pandemic here is not really the disease, you know, because if you go by the etymology of the term pandemic, you know, in Greek, you know, it's something that affects all persons. And then what is that? It's not really the disease. It's the fear, you know, fear of the disease, you know, and that's something, you know, that I think affects, you know, going back to the earlier question, you know, about online learning. That is something that affects all the students, you know, and so it makes online teaching more difficult. Online teaching would be very different, I guess, without, without that, you know, the pandemic, you know, I mean, under normal circumstances, we can have, yes, online learning without that element of fear on the part of the students. So by taking that, by taking that into account, you know, in the teaching, maybe of our courses, particularly in logic, then maybe we will be able to address, you know, these issues, you know, of the students. Thanks very general. How about ma'am Alma, let's think about it in terms of does emotion have anything to do with our thinking, logical thinking. Can we have kind of care? Dr. DJ. I'm currently working on a paper not devising trauma and hope among students and faculty members, but it's yet to be approved by my chair, you know, Professor Dino. Okay, it's about hearing and listening to our students who are suffering from trauma, not the trauma that we know of, but the kind of trauma that shocks them. It's not only the students and the professor and not only the students, but the professors as well that are currently experiencing trauma. So, while we're teaching logic, while we're teaching creative and critical thinking, could this be devoid of emotion? We can separate that know that the kind of care that we have to give our students and the rigor by which we study, by which we teach our subjects. So while I'm teaching what I care for you, I would tell my students, you still have to do the task. So it's not setting aside emotions, but considering it as well. So in the process, you help the student cope with the task, but they would feel that you still care. And then eventually, you would tell them that despite all this, despite the pandemic, there's still hope and you'll find it there in the papers that they turn in. They would make sense of this pandemic, give a critical evaluation of the situation and when you read the papers, beautiful essays from the student, they would see, you would see notes that it's not just the stress that they are focusing on. They would say that we are so resilient and so responsible and from there. And you could say everything still makes sense. Okay, so here's from Gian Australia. Is the liberal logical? Does logic constrict liberality? What do you think, Sir Gerald? From the perspective of a specific system of logic, then we can say that it's not liberal in that you are directed towards certain channels of thinking. You cannot help but think in a certain way. For example, when you construct the formal proof of validity, there is only one answer or at least there is a right answer and you have to follow that. And so in that particular case, you are not free. But at the same time, we need to think that there are other ways of maybe dealing with these problems. And that is where creativity comes in so that, yes, you can be liberal at the same time. You can come up with a formal system of logic, but the way you interpret it, the semantics that you can provide for it. For example, just like in the case of modern logic, we've been through this, right? It can be interpreted in so many ways. You can come up with creative ways of dealing with them. So there is no incompatibility there. You can be logical and at the same time liberal because our semantic interpretations of the formal systems can be anything you like as long as they are consistent. Of course, consistency is not constraining. You can write a work of fiction, which is very much creative, but perfectly logical in that sense. How about you, Dr. Alma, the logic constraint liberal? Can I say something, Dr. JJ? Thanks for Gian Australia. Gian Australia is one of my students in the seminary. And I hope that he learned something logical in what I taught him. Like what Dr. Gerald mentioned on now, they're compatible. We cannot choose one over the other because it's possible that they can play complementary roles. I prefer a formal synergy between the two so that when you are liberal, you can also be logical. When you're logical, you can also be liberal. It's not choosing one over the other, but one may include the other. Thanks, Dr. Alma. Here's something for Sir Gerald regarding the creativity as well from Ron Victor Sarmiento. Formal logic is also able to foster not just critical thinking, but creative thinking as we have said. For example, natural deduction, you could have a kind of proof three or some other kind of thinking about things in terms of Sudoku solving or game-like scenarios. So do you think that we should involve more game-like activities in our programs in order to foster a more intuitive understanding of logical rules? What do you think, Sir Gerald? More of it? Maybe, yes. There is time for it. That's how I have handled my basic logic courses and Sudoku puzzles. We start with puzzles. We start with Sudoku puzzles. I hope that we can incorporate. I think that's what Mr. Sarmiento is talking about. He was my student in intermediate logic and precisely those are the things that we discussed. In the case of the truth three method, well, maybe there is no room for creativity there. The thing is that in the case of the method of formal proof, there is more creativity there. Well, yeah, maybe to a certain extent I can agree with that. And so maybe, yes, we can incorporate more examples like that. As Mr. Sarmiento said, I usually start my logic courses with things like that because I think that's the interest also of the students. Okay, I think we only have time for one last question. One last question from Darius Galorpo from the Facebook chat. I think there are some of the many problems that we have here in the Philippines that greatly and adversely affect the beauty and importance of studying and teaching logic. First, there are those who teach logic from other disciplines, too far from philosophy. Second, there are many who teach logic not in the way that must be taught instead of teaching it in order to develop the students' critical thinking ability. So he's more concerned about that teachers teaching logic. So how do we address this problem? Yeah, I find that a very difficult question. Yeah, struggle. It's a struggle. There might really be some professors that may not be able to teach logic the way it should be taught. But of course, who are we to say this is the kind of a precision they have to have in teaching logic? It's a struggle. Well, we just want to believe that in logic. And I think that we continue training some junior professors and perhaps even the senior professors who may have not updated themselves for a long while. So, yeah, so our webinar may be a useful method in updating our logical skills in order to best serve our students. Okay, so final thoughts. What is logic education in the Philippines and what's the future of logic in the Philippines? Sir Gerald. Well, we just need to realize that all these concerns about logic from the IR apps is something that is constantly changing. We expect that maybe in the next in the next few years, you know, you have a different set of leaders there, you know, maybe somebody might be more inclined and other words, logic, you know. So we just need to continue, you know, keep on doing what we have been doing, maybe improving what we have been doing. And then trying to make our students appreciate, you know, the importance of logic. And hope that sooner or later, these students of ours will become our leaders, you know, and then they will be, they might, they might include logic back into the curriculum. Things like that. No, so we just keep on, we just keep on doing what we have been doing and improving. Okay, thank you. What is logic in the Philippines, logic education in the Philippines and how do we move forward? Dr. JJ, we all want to live in a world that is logical. Because there's so much irrationality in the world now and we know where it is coming from or better yet from whom it is coming so we can count on so few people to go that hard way with us. And when logic gets offered again in another revision of the new general education curriculum in the Philippines, we hope that we teach it the way it should be taught, or we might put to waste what we traded part of our soul for. And maybe to end on, let us not allow the madness of deep logical thinking to stop because I think that's the only remedy for this rational world. Okay, so thanks Dr. Alma, thanks, sir Gerald for your wonderful participation in this roundtable discussion. I'll turn you over to Alex. Thank you.