Nursing diagnosis "altered energy field"

chadash · Feb 15, 2006

What? Where did this come from? I and 3, right? Hey, is this a trick question? No, no, wait a minute, you have to turn ALL of them over to PROVE the theory. At least in this test, right, right? Yes I believe that's it. No stone unturned. But that only proves it for THIS PARTICULAR set of cards. Am I right?

Oh. and by the way, I think it was telling you were the only one to attempt the problem, you logical but original thinker, you.

grannynurse FNP student · Feb 15, 2006

Hard reality here: Tell that to the insurance companies. Do you really think they will pay for rx that is not backed by research?
Oh, btw, as far as EBT goes, I have become a true believer since my facility has adopted the decreased restraint policy.
I'm telling you, my anecdotal experience backs up the research numbers. People at high risk of falling suffer less injuries when you find other interventions besides putting them in a geri chair or tying them in bed. Nursing needs good repeatable research to legitamize it's practice.
REALLY:rolleyes:

Hate to tell you this but insurance companies can and do refuse to pay for medical treatment that is backed by research. They call it experimental.

Grannynurse

kadokin, ASN, RN · Feb 16, 2006

Hate to tell you this but insurance companies can and do refuse to pay for medical treatment that is backed by research. They call it experimental.
Grannynurse

Of COURSE they do. The money-grubbing brutes.

kadokin, ASN, RN · Feb 16, 2006

no one else was interested so....
The answer is the I and the 6. {There was no trick. These are Wason' s cards. It was a way of helping understand science. sort of.}
I have not found a clear answer any where, but this is how I think it works.
You turn over the I to see if there is an odd number there. If there is, great! You need to go on to one other card....cause you cant be sure yet... you would not turn over the 3, it doesnt matter if there is a consonant or vowel there. Remember your hypothesis. For the same reason, you dont turn over your consonant. ( Am I spelling that right?) So you turn over the even number to confirm there is NOT a vowel there. Ta dum!
So, if you only turn over what you have to to prove or disprove the hypothesis, it would be the I and the 6.

I'm not sure I get this. If you want to prove a hypothesis, it isn't it better to have the largest sample possible? Did I miss something in all those years of edumacation? :coollook:

chadash · Feb 16, 2006

I'm not sure I get this. If you want to prove a hypothesis, it isn't it better to have the largest sample possible? Did I miss something in all those years of edumacation?

Well, I dont have those years of edumacation, so you can't go by me. :clown:

This is really more a science thingey, not so much nursing. the idea is to be able to deduce implications, and identify what information is necessary to arrive at an accurate conclusion. The goal in this illustration was to prove the hypothesis true or false. If you turned over the other two cards, you would not have gotten any more info that would have helped in this process.

Remember, strictly test the hypothesis only.

Google wason's and see what you find.

In this illustration only the I or the 6 could disprove or prove the hypothesis. What you found under the other cards would be meaningless.

Oh yeah the hypothesis was :if a card has a vowel on one side then it has an odd number on the other side.

fritzer · Feb 16, 2006

This is to SFCARDIACRN as a friendly FYI. Nothing in science is ever proven. Tah is a basic tenet of the scientific method. Quantitative research results are stated in terms of likelihood or probability. Qualitative research is a whole other matter under which many of the arguments against energy fields, other ways of knowing things can be expressed. Among every individual in all probabilty no two are alike and that alone makes "proof" nebulous. There are too many variables among the interventions in the fields of caring i.e. nursing to make patent generalizations to human on the whole. Maybe garlic does wonders for some, but as a cure all, just like penicillin, a single means does not justify the totality of the end result. The human variable, no matter the intervention, gives rise to many eventualities including human to human field interactions be it electrical, quantum physcics, or mere eye contact. JUST THOUGHTS. NO REPLY NECESSARY.

chadash · Feb 17, 2006

This is to SFCARDIACRN as a friendly FYI. Nothing in science is ever proven. Tah is a basic tenet of the scientific method. Quantitative research results are stated in terms of likelihood or probability. Qualitative research is a whole other matter under which many of the arguments against energy fields, other ways of knowing things can be expressed. Among every individual in all probabilty no two are alike and that alone makes "proof" nebulous. There are too many variables among the interventions in the fields of caring i.e. nursing to make patent generalizations to human on the whole. Maybe garlic does wonders for some, but as a cure all, just like penicillin, a single means does not justify the totality of the end result. The human variable, no matter the intervention, gives rise to many eventualities including human to human field interactions be it electrical, quantum physcics, or mere eye contact. JUST THOUGHTS. NO REPLY NECESSARY.

Please don' be offended by my following statement. I don't pretend to be educated, but I just have to say this.

To say that something is never absolutely proven, and then to jump to the conclusion that we should not use scientific rigor to test hypothesis, is really a misunderstanding of science.

We can establish some things as fact by controlled, repeatable and rigorously verified observation.

I am certain that you even accept some things as laws: such as the basic laws of physics. We establish laws as ""statements of an observed regularity among facts, often expressible as a simple mathematical relationship."

Hope this helps.

SFCardiacRN · Feb 17, 2006

Fritzer, you make good points. Though I've felt compelled to defend science based nursing I do have an open mind. I think the mind is a wonderful thing, barely understood with great potential for self healing. I've seen incredible feats by Tibetan monks and Sufis. Their ability to control metabolism, pain, brain waves and the like is nothing short of miraculous. But these men have spent lifetimes of austere living in constant meditation learning this control. My problem is nurses reading a book and taking a weekend workshop in TT and declaring themselves healers. Though people may have energy fields, there is no data (at this time) to support a link to disease or ability to adjust fields to treat disease. Perhaps someday TT will become a part of nursing process but we must be careful in prematurely adding therapies that may be more harmful than beneficial. (Polio leg casting is a good example and it was a nurse using scientific process that showed how harmful it was.) We do this through rigorous scientific research based on measurable outcomes. If TT is that beneficial, what is the problem with proper studies before we include it in our repertoire?

fritzer · Feb 17, 2006

SFCARDIAC RN,

In no way do I support TT as a highly probable modality yet on some level what ever interaction human to human will have some change occur. 2 people cannot interact without some dynamic occurring whether TT is in theory being practiced or love at first sight. Casn we measure that ? YES. Can we attribute it to some finite object of study? Maybe. I do espouse testing of hypothesis to help augment care of human beings or animals for that matter. Testing hypothesis is moving toward probability of chance occurence or strengthened correlations useful for practice but not the total picture. I am very interested in the other ways of knowing experienced such as intuition, gut fellings, bad vibes, "felt someone looking at me", was thinking about you and you called, especially as it occurs in nursing and to differing degrees among nurses and otrher persons. Thank you for your response, more food for thought.

chadash · Feb 17, 2006

I have a question that may clear up some of my misunderstanding of nursing. Is nursing practice based on something different than medical practice, that is, as in a what physicians practice? Is there different criteria for determining the effacacy of therapies, etc?

Thanks!

SFCardiacRN · Feb 18, 2006

I am very interested in the other ways of knowing experienced such as intuition, gut feelings,

Just this morning, I was in the ICU talking with a 2 day post-op CABG Pt. He was feeling well, no pain, looking forward to going home. But something was nagging me. He had a "fearful" look in his eyes and seemed a touch "ashen". Two hours later he coded. Massive runs of V-tach with BP bottoming out. Took over an hour to bring him back. Was my nagging feeling intuition or observation or both. I don't know! Sometimes I feel like patients can sense when something is wrong and an observant nurse can pickup on that sense. I have had that same nagging feeling and nothing went wrong. Weird, huh.

kadokin, ASN, RN · Feb 18, 2006

Well, I dont have those years of edumacation, so you can't go by me.
This is really more a science thingey, not so much nursing. the idea is to be able to deduce implications, and identify what information is necessary to arrive at an accurate conclusion. The goal in this illustration was to prove the hypothesis true or false. If you turned over the other two cards, you would not have gotten any more info that would have helped in this process.
Remember, strictly test the hypothesis only.
Google wason's and see what you find.
In this illustration only the I or the 6 could disprove or prove the hypothesis. What you found under the other cards would be meaningless.
Oh yeah the hypothesis was :if a card has a vowel on one side then it has an odd number on the other side.

Well, actually, I thought I was talking about science, or, research anyway. Ya know, actually testing and re-testing a theory to make sure it generally holds true, not just in a few specific cases. Isn't that what makes valid research? Not just selecting the cases you want to test to prove your theory, but actually getting a large random sample to see if the theory can be DISproved? I should check out this wason and try to understand more what you're talking about. It seems to me that the method in your question is deliberately skewing the sample in favor of the hypothesis. That doesn't sound like very sound science or research. Just my opinion. :rolleyes: