Nursing diagnosis "altered energy field"

grannynurse FNP student · Feb 12, 2006

What were they thinkin'???? I believe that touch is important, holding a hand, soothing a brow, petting the dog....but do I know the status of your energy field NO, I don't believe that I do.

I don't know the energy fields of anyone else, including my own. But unlike some, I am not ready to write something off because it cannot be demonstrated by scientific evidence. Zen has the correct idea, it is truly amazing what our forefathers knew.

Grannynurse

rngreenhorn · Feb 12, 2006

It won't happen unless there is an observer there to observe it. I remember back in the 80s when I was working on my CNS in psych and was studying family therapy, I found an article in a Family Therapy Journal about a South American researcher who was studying frog vision. He came to the same conclusion - that nothing occured unless it was observed. Now, I'm trying to remember why such an article was in a Family Therapy Journal and what connection there was to family therapy!

True story and very fitting:

If a pot of beans is left on the stove to boil, does it boil if being watched. NO! But step away for 5 minutes to read "altered energy field" thread, it not only boils, but all the H2O boils out and over and makes a heck of a mess on the side of the pot and the stove top.... and it burns the heck out of the beans..... call it Martha Stewart vision.

chadash · Feb 12, 2006

True story and very fitting:
If a pot of beans is left on the stove to boil, does it boil if being watched. NO! But step away for 5 minutes to read "altered energy field" thread, it not only boils, but all the H2O boils out and over and makes a heck of a mess on the side of the pot and the stove top.... and it burns the heck out of the beans..... call it Martha Stewart vision.

Does it count if your dog is watching?

chadash · Feb 12, 2006

The following is an abridge quote from R. Zacharias about how to determine if a belief is truth:

Let us consider, then, three tests that you can apply to a system or statement to verify its claim to truth. The first is logical consistency: Is there a logical consistency in what is being stated, or are there obvious contradictions? ....

The second test is empirical adequacy: Is there evidence that supports what is being asserted? The last test is experiential relevance: Does it apply meaningfully to my life? These are minimal tests for truth and should be in concert.

Some philosophers add a couple more that I think are worthy of note: The undeniability test and the unaffirmability test. What do they mean?

Take, for example, the issue of my existence. While my own existence cannot be logically proven, it is nevertheless undeniable. Have you heard the interaction between the philosophy student and her professor? "How do I know I exist?" demanded the student. "And whom shall I say is asking?" came the professor's reply. You can't help but chuckle, can you? Because you realize that at the moment that you deny your existence, you affirm it at the same time, for it is you denying that you are here to deny anything! Some things cannot be logically proven but yet cannot be denied without affirmation and therefore establish themselves as truth.

The unaffirmability test works differently. It is a test for falsehood. This simply means that just because something can be stated, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is true. "I cannot speak a word of English," may be stated emphatically, but it cannot be affirmed. For while saying, "I cannot speak a word of English," I am actually speaking seven words of English! Therefore, my statement is false.

These tests can help us determine what is true. Many false claims are easily dealt with if we pause and apply some basic tools...

You educated types: apply these to this theory and see if it has veracity.

zenman · Feb 12, 2006

You educated types: apply these to this theory and see if it has veracity.

What theory?

mak2 · Feb 12, 2006

And out of the blue comes another person who stresses "evidence-based" practice but yet fails to look up the evidence, LOL! Welcome to this discussion.

OK where is the evidence for theraputic touch, or maybe theraputic almost touch. I remeber reading JAMA years ago in which a high school science project was all that was needed to point out the lack of measurealble results from TT. Silly concept. OOOOPS I did not realize how long this thread was.

chadash · Feb 12, 2006

What theory?

Correct me if I misread, but I thought in past posts the proponents of TT were saying that TT was not verifiable by the scientific method because there were no mechanisms at this point that can measure the quantum waves or electric fields etc. So if it is not verified scientifically, it is a theory, and if we dont have the mechanisms to test it , we are left with the test for veracity that is used in philosophy and religion and other realms that are not adequately explored with a purely scientific approach.

I know you agree that truth can be tested beyond science,

but you cannot say there is no test, that would be a logical offense: do you have a test that you can apply?

You really can't have it both ways. That is you cannot say 'this is true, but I am unwilling to question contradiction...

So, test it!

chadash · Feb 12, 2006

So, lets break it down:

Is there a logical consistency in what is being stated, or are there obvious contradictions? ....

mak2 · Feb 12, 2006

I am lost, I thought we were discussing the science of nursing wehn we develope nursing diagnosis. There is NO evidence TT has any theraputic value. I am very open minded, but where is the evidnce? I did not say theroy, was that someone else, sorry if I interupted someone else idea.

chadash · Feb 12, 2006

I am lost, I thought we were discussing the science of nursing wehn we develope nursing diagnosis. There is NO evidence TT has any theraputic value. I am very open minded, but where is the evidnce? I did not say theroy, was that someone else, sorry if I interupted someone else idea.

Sorry, think it was I that used the word theory. And I agree: science should be what we are discussing when developing nursing diagnosis.

But if TT and altered energy fields are being used, the least we can do is have some test for veracity. Anything is better than nothing! :clown:

mak2 · Feb 12, 2006

I am not asking for an mode of action, I dont think we know exactly how aspirins work, but to "sell" this therapy to patients there needs to be some evidence that it works, or we might as well be witch doctors and do dances around their hospital bed. Sorry I have to disagree with you but in this case I think it is worse than nothing. Come up with a measurealbe parameter that indicates it helps the patient more than a placebo, I am all for it. Perhaps sell is a bad word, how bout intergating the concept in an athoratative reference at the core of our profession, NANDA, completely without Evidence.

chadash · Feb 12, 2006

I am not asking for an mode of action, I dont think we know exactly how aspirins work, but to "sell" this therapy to patients there needs to be some evidence that it works, or we might as well be witch doctors and do dances around their hospital bed. Sorry I have to disagree with you but in this case I think it is worse than nothing. Come up with a measurealbe parameter that indicates it helps the patient more than a placebo, I am all for it. Perhaps sell is a bad word, how bout intergating the concept in an athoratative reference at the core of our profession, NANDA, completely without Evidence.

Actually, I think you are right. That has to be the standard. Guess I was just despairing of the lack of any real presentation of evidence, but I can see what you mean. If we drag nursing into the realm of philosophy and whatnot, pandora's box will have been opened. (oops, maybe it already has!)

So yes, lets stay on task: evidence based evaluation. So tt proponents, what have you got?