Freezing Hell

dark forest

When I was cleaning my room, I bumped into pieces of yellow papers where I wrote some of my works that I must have forgotten ever existed.

*****************************************************************************************************
Freezing Hell

It was snowing, the night was quiet, the moon was showing her spotless features. It was December in nobody-knows-where, nobody-cares-where land of the hopeless and disembodied spirits, where they shivered in cold, moan in pain, squall for life; died with frostbite in their souls eating them slowly---piercing them from their filthy and unforgivable sins. It was hell only without the flames of eternal fire.

She sat there watching the others who are like her; hungry, thirsty, and suffering for the love and the life that were taken away by her enemies who devoured her happiness; who drowned her in the cold and freezing black waters of nobody-knows where foul oceans of lie and lust. Unfortunately, a sudden immerse cognition came to her---that her enemy is no other than the young lass she sees on her mirror. She's a hazard to herself, she always thought.

She sobbed.

The night was cold, stale and frigid. The foul smell of the dead like burned ashes of bones, tissues and organs, the aroma like fragrance of the morning for those who have been there all there lives. The irony is that they never wanted the place to their home ground, but never can they change what they believe to be destined-----to suffer and die. to endure the pain is the only goal left for existence. Hunger and thirst were no longer enemies, because both were no longer a novelty to them. Apathy was no longer a crime. It was life.

The darkness that enveloped the sky was their only food. The only safe place to be with was to gather around with the rest of the others who are like them living in the shadows of shame, despair and helplessness but she wasn't. She chose to be distant from the others as a form of atonement for all her lies. It was the life they've created for themselves. A life in freezing hell.

Everytime she picked up that razor, she felt life beforehand. And everytime she penetrated it on her slender pale flesh, she felt alive. The blood that dripped from her flesh to the filthy ground reminds her of the dammed life that she's living. Everytime she took in the pills, she began breathing and smelling the perfume-like ocean, touching the thorns, and grasping tightly the thorny wires. Blood spilled again to the same ground where she fell on her knees.

The guilt feelings that she hid inside her are consuming her, eating her soul, gradually inflicting self hate. The more she suffered the pain, the more the anger intensified. It's cut too deep----too deep that the wound would never heal until the day of reckoning, until the day she will be ripped apart into teensy-weensy pieces; burned into frozen ashes until all particles of her will be dispersed in the world that she hated.

(end)

On Leahy's

Ph.D. in Psychology

According to Thomas H. Leahey, the traditional history of science was written by scientist themselves that resulted in smug and self-satisfied works, which made them biased in a certain extent that they only considered accounts in the development of science that they want to reckon. However, historians have written history on a different framework, seeing history of science as a weak human enterprise unresolvable from the rest of human history, imposing fear among scientist that this nontraditional perception on the history of science may influence their students to undermine their faith in science.

Despite the development of the History of Psychology, it is evident that much of psychology’s past have been ignore such that chapters on the books on History of Psychology provide no sense of the past and of what is like to be a psychologist, a physiologist or a philosopher before. Thus rationalizes Topics in History of Psychology is history without the past; also justifying Ebbinghaus’ famous line that “Psychology has a very short history, but with a long past.”

Even scholars or psychologist are historically ignorant about studying the field without even considering events happening outside the field that could have been significant in the study of psychology. In addition, they are shallow in a sense that even they who write about the History of Psychology commit mistakes, lacking depth of intellect or knowledge and concerned only with what is obvious resulting in many errors that new psychology historians have corrected and repeatedly written. Therefore justifying why we only have few references, whereas other books have become obsolete and others were never used.

In Leahey's article, mistakes on the study Psychology were emphasized, including how psychology historians or scholars place value judgments to the extent of writing one’s own perspective rather than putting focus on different perspective. For instance, Edwin G. Boring’s first textbook was not only published as reference book but also has a deeper motive, which is to be used as a defense weapon against John B. Watson’s growing Behaviorism.

Psychology historians have no respect for the value of the past not realizing that everything in the past influences the present; that the past plays an important role in the development of the theories in psychology that we have right now. This is what they consider as Whig and can be linked with the presentist point of view—looking at history from the present perspectives and ideas as a product of the present. There is also an issue on internalism, whereby historians tend to have studied what was happening within the field without regards to what developments other fields have that could contribute to the development in the theories of psychology. In addition, psychology historians associate history with great men and undermining women, because women before have no stand or place in society, which is really discriminating. Furthermore, History of Psychology was represented by only few personalities whereas other great minds were ignored; thus, psychology historians focus on individuals rather than works. Lastly, they are ignorant and shallow that they only have limited view on the study as a result on the mistakes presented above.

As a psychology student, I would have to say that its disappointing that even scholars of the very own field that I am studying now are ignorant, that I also see myself like them. The fact that I have not known much and that I only remember few names and dates make me want to know more about psychology. And as mush as possible I would not want to commit same mistakes that those psychology scholars have committed in the study of the History of Psychology.

On Scientific Paradigm

the creation of science

Okay, I'm a bit inspired by Khun. LOL
After nights of reading the book, it was worthwhile thiough I havent finished it.

Thomas S. Khun emphasized in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolution” that a scientific community practices in reference to a set or rather sets of learned beliefs from accepted achievements or assumptions. And these beliefs become the foundation for learning and application. Paradigms are assumptions that contribute to the development of Normal Science, a research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements that some particular scientific community recognizes for the further research and practice, before a change or shift in paradigm occurs. These paradigms are being studied by students in order to gain membership to a certain scientific community. Basically the knowledge is being passed on to the students from their mentors, which may oftentimes lead to disagreement to basic principles due to student’s critical mindset or rather due to questions and inquiries formulated by them. However, researchers of the paradigm most often than not based their inquiries from the shared paradigm, and are committed to the rules and standards for the application of the certain paradigmic principles.

A paradigm is said to be of success and of having full potential to be of interest to scientists and scholars when it is a novelty rather a succeedent set of fundamentals based on another paradigm as a result of anomaly. From competition with a pre-paradigmic school, a paradigm emerges, especially when it seems to explain all facts which it was confronted with. Consequently pre-paradigms whose proponents never found their way out of the dilemma that they have been faced with, certainly entirely fades. This growing paradigm like an infant undergoes a process of development and within its development the more advocates it possesses, the greater is the probability for its strength to generate.

At its beginning a paradigm is limited in its scope and in precision, that is why mop-operations are relevant; and by which most researchers spend much of their time doing mopping. Thus, proceeding to more inquiries, and paradigm-based researching that “attempts to force nature into a pre-formed and relatively inflexible box that the paradigm supplies.” Anomalies usually happen but nobody seemed to have made effort to look for  anomalies since they are resticted and for those who tried to mostly were not tolerated. Sometimes the disadvantage of forcing nature to a box leads the paradigm to not function well that caused it to cease.

Researching, hence, is like solving puzzle that already has a fixed solution, thus discovering what was already known in advance. And when the result of what has already been anticipate (hypothesis) becomes null, and thereby, considered a failure. Because of the novel studies weren’t tolerated to compete with present beliefs, unexpected result in science happened.

A change in paradigm takes place as a result from discovery brought about by encounters with anomaly. And although Normal Science does not tolerate novelties, they are nonetheless challenged to pursue the belief, which would later on cause them to arise. Anomaly also excites the emergence of a change in an existing paradigm. This emergence occurs when a puzzle is being figured out. These failures are said to have been brought about by disparity and error between the new theory and the present fact.

The scientific revolution can be possible only if a novel theory is substituted to a present paradigm which occurring discrepancies doesn’t have a solution, thereby a failure, resulting in the denunciation of  the proponent for his disability to put the pieces of the puzzle back. And a paradigm shift, on the other hand is not considered a scientific revolution since it only based its inquiries on a particular paradigm. The assimilation of the new paradigm must be demanded them and the old paradigm be rejected. This is what scientific revolution means.

Indeed, progress in the fields of research and science became possible because of the structure of the past scientific methods and of course because of scientific revolution. Although there were lots of biases in the past, they became the tools for the development of science.