Re: Disturbed Energy Field? Yes or No?

Originally Posted by VickyRN

Actually, empiricism is only ONE scientific way of knowing in nursing. Carper, in her seminal work Fundamental Patterns of Knowing in Nursing (1978), identified FOUR different scientific ways of knowing in nursing: personal, ethical, aesthetic, and empirical. Not every natural phenomenon can be captured empirically - just not possible. Does not make it any less real - or any less scientific.

Medical model = empirics, reductionism
Nursing model = holistic focus, taking into account all four patterns of knowing

You're using a very contextual definition of the word empiric there-- one from (as you cited) a nursing theory textbook. I'm talking about empiricism in science in general.

And yes, every natural phenomenon can be studied empirically.

Nursing is not a place to assert things a priori, which is essentially what "disturbed energy fields are".

We must first examine and define the so-called energy fields in order to understand what supposedly manipulating them even means.

Re: Disturbed Energy Field? Yes or No?

Actually, Hypos questions are logical and pointed, though a little sharp, but your responses of impatience and exasperation aren't too helpful either. Kind of reminds me of the movie "Harvey".

In general , though, I have nothing against alternative therapies if the worst thing they can do is nothing. There are many, many of these therapies and truckloads of books have been written about them. I know this because I lived in Boulder, Colorado for seven years.

It's wonderful if a nurse or doctor wants to learn and practice these things, as a separate practice. My questions keep going back to how this would all work in a hospital. There it is frought with problems, not the least of which probably 95 percent of the staff can't see. How could you put that in a careplan? How would the staff nurse know what to chart, how could she give report on an aura? etcetera

Re: Disturbed Energy Field? Yes or No?

A Close Look at Therapeutic Touch

Linda Rosa, BSN, RN; Emily Rosa; Larry Sarner; Stephen Barrett, MD

JAMA. 1998;279:1005-1010.

Abstract:

Context.— Therapeutic Touch (TT) is a widely used nursing practice rooted in mysticism but alleged to have a scientific basis. Practitioners of TT claim to treat many medical conditions by using their hands to manipulate a "human energy field" perceptible above the patient's skin.

Objective.— To investigate whether TT practitioners can actually perceive a "human energy field."

Design.— Twenty-one practitioners with TT experience for from 1 to 27 years were tested under blinded conditions to determine whether they could correctly identify which of their hands was closest to the investigator's hand. Placement of the investigator's hand was determined by flipping a coin. Fourteen practitioners were tested 10 times each, and 7 practitioners were tested 20 times each.

Main Outcome Measure.— Practitioners of TT were asked to state whether the investigator's unseen hand hovered above their right hand or their left hand. To show the validity of TT theory, the practitioners should have been able to locate the investigator's hand 100% of the time. A score of 50% would be expected through chance alone.

Results.— Practitioners of TT identified the correct hand in only 123 (44%) of 280 trials, which is close to what would be expected for random chance. There was no significant correlation between the practitioner's score and length of experience (r=0.23). The statistical power of this experiment was sufficient to conclude that if TT practitioners could reliably detect a human energy field, the study would have demonstrated this.

Conclusions.— Twenty-one experienced TT practitioners were unable to detect the investigator's "energy field." Their failure to substantiate TT's most fundamental claim is unrefuted evidence that the claims of TT are groundless and that further professional use is unjustified.

Re: Disturbed Energy Field? Yes or No?

I was on my way home from work today, and listening to AM radio, and attention was drawn to the topic of "auras"(energy fields). The guest had to have been a Phd. or an MD, she was addressed as "doctor". According to your standards this should give her credibility.OK.

She then went on to explain how, with her divining rod, she was able to see people's auras change depending on various affirmations they would say. It varied from 10 to 20 feet. So they had a 20 to 40 foot aura-span. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but if you had 4 people in a room, wouldn't that get confusing?

Then it was time for listener questions. A lady very earnestly asked the expert what she should do about her pre-school aged child's problem. Apparently the child had picked up or had an aura of a "psychic vampire". How do I get rid of my child's psychic vampire. The expert gave the worried mother a few affiirmations to recite that would get rid of the psychic vampire. Though seeming skeptical at first, she was reassured that "it would really work for sure". That's when I turned the radio off.

Now, this is either complete and utter nonsense or it isn't. That's the problem with these things. When you base your assertions of efficacy on the premise, "it's there because I say it's there" you have a pretty much unlimited open field. When does it cross over into the absurd? According to your logic, NEVER.

None of this would be that much of a big deal if the majority of posts from believers in DEF didn't contain the words, ignorant, uninformed, disrespectful and negative. Actually, THATs pretty disrespectful.

Re: Disturbed Energy Field? Yes or No?

Originally Posted by hypocaffeinemia

And yes, every natural phenomenon can be studied empirically.

.

"I am, by vocation, a professional intellectual. I have a Ph.D. in psychology, I teach at a university, and I have been both well trained in and teach the methods of science. As a scientist I should have gone to Peru to measure behaviors that would allow me to test specific theories. I did not. The essence of the Andean approach I have been learning is non-intellectual. It represents a way of knowing about, understanding, and experiencing reality that lies outside of the intellect. To learn the Andean approach I needed to quiet the constant chatter of my mind. The deal I made with myself was that my intellect would be free to make whatever sense it could of my experiences after the fact."

Oakley E. Gordon, Ph.D.

Re: Disturbed Energy Field? Yes or No?

Originally Posted by Woodenpug

A Close Look at Therapeutic Touch

Linda Rosa, BSN, RN; Emily Rosa; Larry Sarner; Stephen Barrett, MD

JAMA. 1998;279:1005-1010.

Keep googling till you find out why publishing this article become a very big embarassment to a "repected" medical journal.

Re: Disturbed Energy Field? Yes or No?

It shouldn't matter to you that the results were an embarassment to JAMA. Had there been six bazillion really good studies that disproved Theraputic Touch you can say that they just didn't "know" it right.

Re: Disturbed Energy Field? Yes or No?

I've read about the well-publicised Rosa et al study several times, and read the paper itself once or twice.

It's certainly a common criticism of research into complementary therapies that the way the investigation was structured conflicts with the way the practice under investigation works. This is particularly the case with those practice, like TT and homeopathy, that seem to contradict what we know of physics and the way the world works in other respects. I'm reminded, when reading these, of psychics who say that the presence of a disbeliever interferes with their ability to contact the Other Side.

On your recommendation, zenman, I did some more investigations. I bypassed google's main pages, because I was less interested in the reactions of hoi polloi of unknown provenance, and used Scholar. There's certainly criticism on the literature of methodological flaws in the original research, though these are in turn countered by authors not associated with the field.

As is so often the case I found myself reading a number of other articles supporting, and criticising, TT. I found Katherine Bowman's commentary on Wardell et al's paper (Diane Wind Wardell, PhD, RNC, HNC, CHTP; Diana H. Rintala, PhD; Zhigang Duan, MD, MS; and Gabriel Tan, PhD, ABPP "A Pilot Study of Healing Touch and Progressive Relaxation for Chronic Neuropathic Pain in Persons With Spinal Cord Injury" Journal of Holistic Nursing 2006 24 (4): 231-240) particularly useful.

In supporting her criticism of the paper she cites O'Mathúna ("Evidence-based practice and reviews of therapeutic touch" Journal of nursing scholarship 2000 32 (3):279-285), who "found that authors [of TT reviews] often cited only the studies with favorable findings. When these authors cited studes with contradictory finidngs, only the fovorable ones were discussed. In many of the reviews, the studies were cited as indicating the effectiveness of Therapeutic Touch when, in fact, the studies indicated that Therapeutic Touch was ineffective." (p. 241)

Another response to the Wardell et al article, by Henkelman (Journal of nursing scholarship 2004 36 (4): 288, author reply 288-9), notes the author's admission that "no generalizable results were found' (despite the authors concluding that the technique was valid and useful), and concluded "positive results attributed to healing touch in the studies cited could well have been because of placebo effects or, more simply, to mood alterations resulting from the interventions of a caring person regardless of what that person was doing." As I'm unable to post links to journal articles that require a sign in I've found an open site that includes Henkelman's letter and Wardell's response here.

What I didn't find was anything supporting a position that publishing the Rosa et al paper embarassed JAMA. Can you expand on this statement?

Re: Disturbed Energy Field? Yes or No?

Originally Posted by zenman

"I am, by vocation, a professional intellectual. I have a Ph.D. in psychology, I teach at a university, and I have been both well trained in and teach the methods of science. As a scientist I should have gone to Peru to measure behaviors that would allow me to test specific theories. I did not. The essence of the Andean approach I have been learning is non-intellectual. It represents a way of knowing about, understanding, and experiencing reality that lies outside of the intellect. To learn the Andean approach I needed to quiet the constant chatter of my mind. The deal I made with myself was that my intellect would be free to make whatever sense it could of my experiences after the fact."

Oakley E. Gordon, Ph.D.

I realize your background, zenman, and want to make it clear I have nothing against alternative therapies that invoke a healthy dose of the supernatural. My beef is pretending it's science, when it isn't. Your quote seems to support this.

Re: Disturbed Energy Field? Yes or No?

Originally Posted by talaxandra

I've read about the well-publicised Rosa et al study several times, and read the paper itself once or twice.


What I didn't find was anything supporting a position that publishing the Rosa et al paper embarassed JAMA. Can you expand on this statement?
[/font]

All my books are packed up and will be picked up today as I'm moving. However, I found the info on the web, except for in one book. The editor of JAMA was fired, not only for this article but for other unwise decisions as well. Think for a minute. Here's a peer-reviewed highly respected scientific journal who publishes a paper by a six year old who's mother is an acknowledged skeptic. It boggles the mind!! I remember even a skeptic society publishing a response saying you should at least follow your own journal guidelines. The study also had nothing to do with TT.

I don't do TT and don't care. I do other energetic work, along side physicians and other scientists.