Nursing diagnosis "altered energy field"

[paphgrl]

"Altered energy diagnosis"

Do you support this NANDA diagnosis? Or do you feel that this diagnosis threatens the legitamacy of our profession? Nanda still stands behind it. What are your thoughts?

paphgrl

[chadash]

Hypothesis: If a person is drinking beer, then he/she should be 21 years or older.

four cards:

Beer

Cola

age 22

age 16

Which cards do you need to turn over?

[Darth Nightingale]

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, ...!

this is a long thread but i have read much of it. from what i have read tt (or disturbed energy field) does not ( in this chemist opinion) even hold water as a theory. there are theories to explain gravity, or magnetism, and quantum mechanical observations etc. (i get a headache every time i think of pi to pi* transitions) these things we can measure but not truly explain yet (like anti-bonding). we have pretty good guesses... but they are still theories. if tt can not be measured then the explanation for it, by virtue of definition, can not be called a "theory"... period.

just like god, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist (falsifiable)... it just means it is more of a religious sentiment than a scientific notion. with that said i'm not knocking it. i'm just saying that it isn't a theory. heck it isn't even an hypothesis.

let's not mix science and religion. both are tainted for the worse when we do.

this whole conversation reminds me of a church service i had along, long time ago. the preacher said he had a headache, so he took two aspirin and said a prayer. he said he didn't have a headache anymore... so "the prayer worked." this got quite a laugh from the pews... but i wasn't one of them.

[chadash]

this is a long thread but i have read much of it. from what i have read tt (or disturbed energy field) does not ( in this chemist opinion) even hold water as a theory. there are theories to explain gravity, or magnetism, and quantum mechanical observations etc. (i get a headache every time i think of pi to pi* transitions) these things we can measure but not truly explain yet (like anti-bonding). we have pretty good guesses... but they are still theories. if tt can not be measured then the explanation for it, by virtue of definition, can not be called a "theory"... period.

just like god, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist (falsifiable)... it just means it is more of a religious sentiment than a scientific notion. with that said i'm not knocking it. i'm just saying that it isn't a theory. heck it isn't even an hypothesis.

let's not mix science and religion. both are tainted for the worse when we do.

this whole conversation reminds me of a church service i had along, long time ago. the preacher said he had a headache, so he took two aspirin and said a prayer. he said he didn't have a headache anymore... so "the prayer worked." this got quite a laugh from the pews... but i wasn't one of them.

i agree! may i add this one ending (really really!) remark?

what i am saying is this (and honest! i will shut up!} underneath what we believe about tt or energy fields or what not is what we believe about science, and under that is what we understand to be logic, and under that is whether we believe (by golly) in absolutes. i guess i don't think this is any small thing, and i do believe it is worth our evaluation.

what is nursing to become? it is up to you. your choice.

so, tt, energy fields, and all, they are small. what are the underpinnings of nursing? now that is the real deal!

[zenman]

Nursing is a SCIENCE. Medicine is a science. :

Some say medicine is not a science, it just employs the sciences...and not the latest sciences, either. Nursing must be right there also.

[Kelly_the_Great]

Let's not mix science and religion. Both are tainted for the worse when we do.

I'm thinking this is perhaps the problem though. Since science alone is no longer capable of explaining phenomena, nor is religion/mysticism/spirituality, perhaps we should search for avenues to bring the two together in an attempt to gain understanding...???

[kadokin, ASN, RN]

Hypothesis: If a person is drinking beer, then he/she should be 21 years or older.

four cards:

Beer Cola age 22 age 16

Which cards do you need to turn over?

Again, I say ALL of them. If there is a beer under age 16, or an age 15 under beer, it is evidence against your theory. Still haven't explored this wason thing or person or whatever.

[chadash]

Again, I say ALL of them. If there is a beer under age 16, or an age 15 under beer, it is evidence against your theory. Still haven't explored this wason thing or person or whatever.

Found this explanation, since I am really stumbling around trying to explain this~

I write this with apologies, sorry, I can tell I am irritating the heck out of you~

"The rule here is "If a person is drinking beer, then he/she is 21 years or older." Formally, the problem here is identical to the Wason's card problem, but almost everyone chooses the correct people to check: the age of the person drinking beer and what the 16 year old is drinking.

Deductive reasoning (which is arguing from the general to the specific) also suffers some problems. A common error is "affirming the consequent" which is when the person seems to reverse the major premise of a syllogism. For example, when told that "all chefs wear white aprons," they reverse this to also meaning that "all people wearing white aprons are chefs" which may or may not be true. In a way, this is like a confirmation bias, but is usually studied in terms of how easy it is to image the possibilities and whether or not the person images all of the possibilities. It has been found that when people don't use imagery or fail to image all of the possibilities, they make deductive errors. Again, this illustrates that human reasoning tends to function best when it is working with concrete ideas, which are imaginable, rather than abstract ideas which are not as easily (if at all) imaginable.

The study of problem-solving is also done by looking at when people make errors or get stuck. In this case, most of the examples of getting stuck come down to "mental set" (which is when thought is too rigid or inflexible). Specific exams include functional and procedural fixedness (which are failures to think of other uses for objects or other ways to do things, respectively), and ill-defined problems (when it isn't clear what the goal is or what one is allowed to do to get to the goal). The key to breaking out of mental set is called "perceptual reorganization" - such as finding an analogy, a different way of representing the problem in your mind, or breaking the problem up into sub-problems with sub-goals."

I am suggesting that determining whether or not therapeutic touch is valid in practice, or even harmful, is a much more complex decision than what cards to turn over to establish a hypothesis

The point to all this is, each individual nurse needs to have their practice informed by evidence based conclusions. Practice cannot be left to individual experience, or intuition, of even anecdotal evidence. While practicing the art of nursing, you daily follow evidence based data on dosages of drugs. . I stand by my belief that rigorous examination and statistical evaluation is essential.

[chadash]

By the way, what is your discipline and why did you choose to join allnurses?

Just curious.

I guess I didnt answer this question yet! I am a nursing assistant and joined all nurses when I was going to start into nurses school last year, but my family situation did not allow me to start school, so...

I tried the other day to "unjoin", but that has not happened as of yet. I am betting after these last posts, I will be on my way soon:clown:

I came to learn.

And sorry, I am a teaser. No harm meant.