DNPs will eventually have unlimited SOP

[SpecterGT260]

Wow you figured out my first name. Not like anyone else has the same name

Fine.... Peter... *B* (am I freaking you out yet?)

Well prowler didn't have facts either. He said no surgeon would train a DNP, but he doesn't have any facts to prove that.

You can't exactly provide evidence for such a claim except the inability to find evidence. He fulfilled any and all burdens of proof in the exchange.

There are no pink polka-dotted elephants in Wyoming. I have no evidence of this. Does that make it wrong?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[kpcrew]

Well prowler didn't have facts either. He said no surgeon would train a DNP, but he doesn't have any facts to prove that.

Being in a general surgery residency program gives way more legitimacy than being a third year.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Being in a general surgery residency program gives way more legitimacy than being a third year.

I missed something... was it a classmate of his that said he would train DNPs for the right price? thats..... thats a silly thing to bring up in an argument.

 

[peteB]

I think religious people would disagree with you

Sent from my DROIDX using SDN Mobile

 

[peteB]

Fine.... Peter... *B* (am I freaking you out yet?)


You can't exactly provide evidence for such a claim except the inability to find evidence. He fulfilled any and all burdens of proof in the exchange.

There are no pink polka-dotted elephants in Wyoming. I have no evidence of this. Does that make it wrong?

I don't think he actually tried to find evidence. For example, if he had pointed to a survey of surgeons showing that none wanted to train DNPs that would be evidence. Just saying you can't find evidence without actually trying doesn't count.

Sent from my DROIDX using SDN Mobile

 

[SpecterGT260]

I think religious people would disagree with you

Sent from my DROIDX using SDN Mobile

I am not aware of any of the major world religions which believe in pink polkadotted Wyomingian Elephants.

I don't think he actually tried to find evidence. For example, if he had pointed to a survey of surgeons showing that none wanted to train DNPs that would be evidence. Just saying you can't find evidence without actually trying doesn't count.

Sent from my DROIDX using SDN Mobile

It doesnt need to count. The burden of proof is typically on the person who says something IS, not the person who says something ISNT

 

[peteB]

I am not aware of any of the major world religions which believe in pink polkadotted Wyomingian Elephants.


It doesnt need to count. The burden of proof is typically on the person who says something IS, not the person who says something ISNT

I was referring to the fact that religious people usually believe that the burden of proof is on the non-believer. It was a joke.

Sent from my DROIDX using SDN Mobile

 

[peteB]

It doesnt need to count. The burden of proof is typically on the person who says something IS, not the person who says something ISNT

Are you his personal assistant? Lol. Why are you sticking up for him everywhere relentlessly?

Sent from my DROIDX using SDN Mobile

 

[kpcrew]

I am not aware of any of the major world religions which believe in pink polkadotted Wyomingian Elephants.


It doesnt need to count. The burden of proof is typically on the person who says something IS, not the person who says something ISNT

but of course you first have to determine if something is a falsifiable statement or not

 

[SpecterGT260]

It was a joke.

oh.....

 

[SpecterGT260]

but of course you first have to determine if something is a falsifiable statement or not

i think it easily passes the test. Show 1 surgeon who is willing to train them.

No, a classmate talking about it doesn't count.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Are you his personal assistant? Lol. Why are you sticking up for him everywhere relentlessly?

Sent from my DROIDX using SDN Mobile

Prowler? no.... actually had to go back and look to see who you were arguing with. I just agree with the sound logic and subtly mock the poor logic around these parts. Then I take a nap.

 

[peteB]

i think it easily passes the test. Show 1 surgeon who is willing to train them.

No, a classmate talking about it doesn't count.

I have a 3rd year surgical resident who is ready and willing. However I cannot disclose his name for confidentiality reasons. Yes he's not a surgeon but he will be by the time a DNPs surgery program gets started

Sent from my DROIDX using SDN Mobile

 

[Sephiroth]

Fine.... Peter... *B* (am I freaking you out yet?)


You can't exactly provide evidence for such a claim except the inability to find evidence. He fulfilled any and all burdens of proof in the exchange.

There are no pink polka-dotted elephants in Wyoming. I have no evidence of this. Does that make it wrong?

brb, gotta paint an elephant with pink polkadots and bring it to wyoming

 

[peteB]

Instead of arguing with me about what DNPs may or may not do to move onto our turf, why don't we work on keeping them in check so we don't have to worry about it?

 

[45408]

Well prowler didn't have facts either. He said no surgeon would train a DNP, but he doesn't have any facts to prove that.

It's a negative. Like Specter said, you can't prove a negative.

I don't think he actually tried to find evidence. For example, if he had pointed to a survey of surgeons showing that none wanted to train DNPs that would be evidence. Just saying you can't find evidence without actually trying doesn't count.

Because that would be a pretty silly survey, and it doesn't exist. I get several surgical journals that have numerous columns on surgical practice in the US, and they would mention it if something like that came out. I'm familiar with the literature. Feel free to prove me wrong, I'd love to see it, but I really doubt you'll find anything.

 

[peteB]

There are no pink polka-dotted elephants in Wyoming. I have no evidence of this. Does that make it wrong?

It doesn't make it wrong or right. You need evidence to make any sort of statement credible.

 

[45408]

I have a 3rd year surgical resident who is ready and willing. However I cannot disclose his name for confidentiality reasons. Yes he's not a surgeon but he will be by the time a DNPs surgery program gets started

I'm also a billionaire, dumped Heidi Klum to date Adriana Lima, and drive a twin turbo Reventon.

If you're going to use the anonymity on SDN, go all out.

 

[SpecterGT260]

It doesn't make it wrong or right. You need evidence to make any sort of statement credible.

So... when I say there are no such elephants you are saying you don't believe me

 

[peteB]

It's a negative. Like Specter said, you can't prove a negative.

Any statement is meaningless without evidence to back it up, whether it is a negative statement or a positive one. You can too prove negative statements. Take this statement: "You don't have HIV". You can prove that statement with a lab test.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Any statement is meaningless without evidence to back it up, .

Prove it

 

[peteB]

I'm also a billionaire, dumped Heidi Klum to date Adriana Lima, and drive a twin turbo Reventon.

If you're going to use the anonymity on SDN, go all out.

I have a feeling my statement is a lot more probable than the one you just made.

 

[peteB]

I
Because that would be a pretty silly survey, and it doesn't exist. I get several surgical journals that have numerous columns on surgical practice in the US, and they would mention it if something like that came out. I'm familiar with the literature. Feel free to prove me wrong, I'd love to see it, but I really doubt you'll find anything.

If you have no evidence to back up your statements, don't make them.

 

[kpcrew]

Any statement is meaningless without evidence to back it up, whether it is a negative statement or a positive one. You can too prove negative statements. Take this statement: "You don't have HIV". You can prove that statement with a lab test.

maybe his viral load was too low to be detected
great example

 

[peteB]

maybe his viral load was too low to be detected
great example

In that case you can't don't have evidence either way, so you can't make a negative or positive statement about it. You have to have some sort of evidence to make a statement. I realize in this particular case the default answer is "no", but that actually doesn't make sense if you think about it. Of course if his viral load is too low to be detected that means for all intents and purposes he doesn't have it, so we can say "no" but if you want to be technical, you can't say that unless you can prove that there isn't a single virus in him.

 

[peteB]

Prove it

Why don't you prove that it's not true? Since you're the one saying the burden of proof lies on the person who says it is...

 

[SpecterGT260]

maybe his viral load was too low to be detected
great example

Actually, saying "you don't have_____" is still a positive statement.

You are positively asserting a status. Even if that status is missing something it is still a positive assertion. It can be proven.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Why don't you prove that it's not true? Since you're the one saying the burden of proof lies on the person who says it is...

I don't think that's what happened. You made a statement without evidence. By your own reasoning the statement is not credible. Irony

 

[peteB]

Actually, saying "you don't have_____" is still a positive statement.

You are positively asserting a status. Even if that status is missing something it is still a positive assertion. It can be proven.

Ok, so that means that Prowler's original comment that "Zero surgeons will train DNPs" is also a positive statement, and can be proven, which he hasn't, as lack of evidence isn't evidence. A survey of surgeons stating that they would not train DNPs would be evidence, but that hasn't been done. So his statement cannot yet be made.

 

[peteB]

I don't think that's what happened. You made a statement without evidence. By your own reasoning the statement is not credible. Irony

My statement is a rule of logic.

 

[SpecterGT260]

My statement is a rule of logic.

No it isn't. The concept of falsifiability is a rule of logic. Not every statement requires evidence as some statements cannot be supported by evidence.

 

[peteB]

No it isn't. The concept of falsifiability is a rule of logic. Not every statement requires evidence as some statements cannot be supported by evidence.

Statements that cannot be supported by evidence are meaningless. Just think about it for a second. If I claim something is true but I have no evidence to prove it, do you believe that my statement has any validity?

There is a place between true and false, and that is unknown. Without evidence, your statement lies in the unknown category. This applies to both negative and positive statements.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Statements that cannot be supported by evidence are meaningless.

Prove it

 

[peteB]

Prove it

OK Let me rephrase myself: There are no statements without evidence that are meaningful.

or No statement without evidence exists that is meaningful.

or A statement without evidence is not meaningful.

Those are negative statements. Now you prove it. As you said, the burden of proof is never on the one making the negative statement.

Any positive statement can be made into a negative statement and vice versa, so your point doesn't make sense.

 

[cbrons]

I have to say in my 5+ years on SDN I never thought I'd see Prowler take part in derailing a thread

 

[SpecterGT260]

OK Let me rephrase myself: There are no statements without evidence that are meaningful.

or No statement without evidence exists that is meaningful.

That's a negative statement. Now you prove it. As you said, the burden of proof is never on the one making the negative statement.

Any positive statement can be made into a negative statement and vice versa, so your point doesn't make sense.

ok...
1) that is a self defeating statement. Because you provide no evidence, if you apply the statement to itself it becomes meaningless. Because it becomes meaningless it is no longer held valid. Its almost a paradoxical statement . That is what I meant by "irony" earlier. I figured you'd catch that.

2) All statements have meaning. Unless they are gibberish. Meaning is just the conveyance of intent or understanding. If you understand a statement, you took from it "meaning"

That's nitpicky and totally beside the point.... but I don't believe I am being any more difficult here than you are. Your turn

 

[peteB]

ok...
1) that is a self defeating statement. Because you provide no evidence, if you apply the statement to itself it becomes meaningless. Because it becomes meaningless it is no longer held valid. Its almost a paradoxical statement . That is what I meant by "irony" earlier. I figured you'd catch that.

2) All statements have meaning. Unless they are gibberish. Meaning is just the conveyance of intent or understanding. If you understand a statement, you took from it "meaning"

That's nitpicky and totally beside the point.... but I don't believe I am being any more difficult here than you are. Your turn

Anyway.... To get back to the actual topic of the thread...

My point was that it is not unreasonable to think that if compensated well enough, there would be surgeons willing to train DNPs. There are enough people out there who would put personal gain ahead of protecting their profession. If you don't believe that's true, then I have a bridge to sell you. Just take a look at radiologists who participate in outsourcing.

I actually do know a surgical resident who has agreed to do it, but of course I can't prove that without giving away my anonymity.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Anyway.... To get back to the actual topic of the thread...

My point was that it is not unreasonable to think that if compensated well enough, there would be surgeons willing to train DNPs. There are enough people out there who would put personal gain ahead of protecting their profession. If you don't believe that's true, then I have a bridge to sell you. Just take a look at radiologists who participate in outsourcing.

I actually do know a surgical resident who has agreed to do it, but of course I can't prove that without giving away my anonymity.

I think it will take more than a handful of surgeons to do this.

 

[peteB]

I think it will take more than a handful of surgeons to do this.

I think nursing schools with enough money can find more than a handful of surgeons to do it too. Particularly the ones that are retiring or retired and want easy money.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I think nursing schools with enough money can find more than a handful of surgeons to do it too. Particularly the ones that are retiring or retired and want easy money.

I was saying that I think finding doctors is not the only obstacle to this

 

[peteB]

I was saying that I think finding doctors is not the only obstacle to this

Oh. Yeah that's true. There are many obstacles in the road, but the nursing lobbies have shown that they are capable of removing obstacles very effectively. Who would have thought 30 years ago that nurses would be practicing on their own as PCPs and have the title of 'doctor'?

 

[SpecterGT260]

Oh. Yeah that's true. There are many obstacles in the road, but the nursing lobbies have shown that they are capable of removing obstacles very effectively. Who would have thought 30 years ago that nurses would be practicing on their own as PCPs and have the title of 'doctor'?

that's only kinda happening... and most don't get away with being called "doctor".

 

[peteB]

that's only kinda happening... and most don't get away with being called "doctor".

Well they do have a legal right to be called "doctor X" (where X is their name) since they have doctorate degrees. And as far as them getting away with it, I have seen several patients who referred to their DNPs as "my doctor". If you haven't run into any of that yet, you will, trust me. The more DNPs there are, the more common this will become.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Well they do have a legal right to be called "doctor X" (where X is their name) since they have doctorate degrees. And as far as them getting away with it, I have seen several patients who referred to their DNPs as "my doctor". If you haven't run into any of that yet, you will, trust me. The more DNPs there are, the more common this will become.

I have seen it some. For every one of those I have seen patients who have put the DNP through the "Wait so you're a nurse? I thought you said you were a doctor.... yeah... but not a real doctor"
Its satisfying

 

[peteB]

I have seen it some. For every one of those I have seen patients who have put the DNP through the "Wait so you're a nurse? I thought you said you were a doctor.... yeah... but not a real doctor"
Its satisfying

Haha well we can enjoy that for now but eventually DNP will meld into the popular definition of a doctor, the nursing associations will see to it that that happens.

 

[kpcrew]

I have seen it some. For every one of those I have seen patients who have put the DNP through the "Wait so you're a nurse? I thought you said you were a doctor.... yeah... but not a real doctor"
Its satisfying

hahahahaha

 

[45408]

I have to say in my 5+ years on SDN I never thought I'd see Prowler take part in derailing a thread

It's because I can't turn my eyes away from this Godawful train wreck. This guy must be so much fun at parties.

 

[Bacchus]

Let's focus on the OP.

 

[peteB]

It's because I can't turn my eyes away from this Godawful train wreck. This guy must be so much fun at parties.

Wow, look who's talking. The dude who can't admit he might even possibly be wrong or not know everything, even when it's been proven to him over and over again Now look, he's resorting to calling me names because he can't beat me with his arguments.

 

[Rendar5]

peteB, whether you're right or wrong, you're such a godawful know-it-all last-word-grabbing literal thinker, that I just want to hit you repeatedly until you forget every last bit of fancy-shmancy debate club logic.