chbare

That sucks. Hope you get to feeling better.

I think the idea is that the material is better spread out. While a semester is indeed about 15 weeks, you typically have breaks and what not that can spread the actual time out a bit more. This may in theory allow a person to take advantage of this time to study and work at digesting the material.

I think I had some difficulty interpreting your statement. He did say something vaguely like that. In essence, he said we would have to know a hell of a lot more about the universe to definitely say there is no God. However, he was a skeptic nonetheless. Again, I go back to my unicorn analogy. It would not be possible to say definitely, that no unicorn exists unless you looked under your bed and made good measurements that could be verified. This whole concept applies to the evolving debate at hand. Is there a chance God exists? Absolutely. Even the most hardened atheists would agree we don't know everything and there may be some sort of divine mechanism if you will. However, when we look at the evidence, not only does it not point to a God, much of what we know is completely inconsistent with the traditional "American" view of a personal, interventional supreme being. Most skeptics would argue this is not an absence of evidence situation but rather the evidence points to un-intelligent mechanisms. So, the question of belief and the atheist/agnostic view still comes down to a bias in interpretation and I suspect part of this bias is due to the inflammatory nature if the word atheist. If religious people like to use words to stir up heated dialogue, their secular counterparts do as well. Another example is the following: A quantum consequence know as tunnelling exists. Basically, objects have a chance of tunnelling through a seemingly impenetrable barrier to exist on the other side due to their wavelike nature. However, macroscopic objects have virtually no chance of doing this. Yet, there is still an unimaginably small chance that I could run at a brick wall and tunnel through it. However, does anybody believe in any "real" sense that I would ever be able to do it? This is much like the difference between the atheist and agnostic. As stated earlier, in a real, practicle sense, neither believe in a God. However, most are prepared to believe in the even of evidence to the contrary. In fact, humans are hard wired to believe and have "faith" in some sense. For example, the faster than light neutrino issue that occurred. Many people were on board with throwing out Einstein in spite of over 100 years of some of the most accurate predictions ever known. Unfortunately, this was ultimately found to be wrong due to a cable connection issue. The same applies to religion. Even the hardest atheists such as the outgoing Dawkins admit that they want to believe in everlasting life, but cannot due to the concepts that we have already discussed. Therefore, it's natural to have slightly different interpretations of terminology, but the bottom line remains the same when it comes to most atheists and agnostics. Some people such as my pal (not literally) say that agnostic beliefs are the pre-requisites for being an atheist. Again, pretty much the same underlying beliefs IMHO.

That adds some clarity to the discussion.

I worked in such a situation; however, I never felt the need to perform high risk procedures with significant consequences and little benefits when I was close to a hospital. Let us not forget multiple issues including pharmaceutical misuse, ignoring the request of a physician and delay in transport were also quoted. If a counter argument is going to be valid, somebody here is going to have to defend the paramedic's actions and show how they could be considered standard of care or even best practice.

I'm not sure I understand Dwayne?

The nature of the contemporary agnostic is that you cannot have definitive belief without evidence. Therefore, I would argue most agnostics do not have a definite belief in any God or organised religion unless said evidence were to be discovered. As I've said, most people who define themselves as atheist would come to the same outcome under the same circumstances. Additionally, I believe the term that both agnostics and atheists agree on is skepticism. To that end, both beliefs are fundamentally the same. This really smart man explains the debat in exactly the way I see it: This really smart man has a different interpretation: However, both of these smart men would probably agree with this smart man: Debate over IMHO.

I would disagree. Many agnostics in fact do not believe. The understanding of belief can be made with a useful analogy: Do you believe a magic unicorn lives under your bed? -Most would answer no. However, if you found evidence that could be validated to the rest of the world, then most would agree with the unicorn hypothesis. I dare say this same logic could be applied to religion and people who identify as both atheist and agnostic would agree. Again, no difference other than an interpretation bias.

Agnostic was basically a PC term developed by Darwin's pit bull that essentially means atheist. Personally, I don't think there exist many atheists and prefer the term agnostic. AK, finish reading before commenting. Most rational people who are skeptical and believe in the scientific method would agree that they would believe in a conscious, divine mechanism if good, reproducible, peer reviewed evidence existed. This way of believing epitomises the contemporary understanding of the term agnostic. Therefore, there really is little difference between the terms agnostic and atheist other than an interpretation bias. In fact, the terms skeptic and humanist may better describe what people believe. Bottom line: There is little to no fundamental difference between a contemporary agnostic and a contemporary atheist. Dwayne, Khan academy will be your best bet. Download his free videos for all your learning needs. Edit: Download when you get home or find somebody who can provide you with decent Internet access.

Sorry, it means science, technology, engineering or mathematics.

If you are looking for high yield and to transition out of EMS, the significance of STEM degrees cannot be over stressed.

It does not appear that my knowledge outstrips yours brother.

Joking aside, there is truth to that statement. Particles with mass obey something called the Pauli Exclusion Principle, for the most part. This says that no two Fermions can occupy the same quantum state. However, when it comes to two vehicles crashing, you actually deal with electrostatic forces long before getting close enough to worry about the exclusion principle. On a side note, the extreme "pressure" produced by the exclusion principle is what keeps massive objects such as brown dwarfs and neutron stars from collapsing.

He was countering another dopey analogy similar to the starving philosopher video above. You may be confusing what a physicist really said about this philosophy. Arthur Eddington, a famous astrophysicist who was able to validate Einstein's theory of general relativity did talk about this statement, but ultimately stated that the moon would be around even if humanity were to no longer exist. There may not be creatures to call the object an object, the moon, Luna or other such name, but it would exist nonetheless. Again, I think some of the issues stem from not appreciating the wave like aspect of these particles. The linked videos may help you out. This is a series of videos I did where I used a programme called Atom in a Box that solves the Schrodinger equation for an electron in a Hydrogen atom. By the second video I pose a question that often = mind blown. A wise man once told me something that generated a large amount of clarity for me: "Quit looking at the electron like it's a phucking particle!" Apparently, I cannot attach all five files...

Bieber, the Copenhagen interpretation is not as relevant as it once was. Many people now favour the many worlds interpretation. I'm not nearly educated enough to make definitive statements about such things; however, I don't really look at a wave function as a real, physical thing. Rather, the wavefunction is a verb, a handy device that helps make predictions. Also remember, the wavefunction is but one way to look at the mathematics of quantum mechanics. Before the Schrodinger equation, Heisenburg developed a working theory based on matrix mathematics (linear algebra) but it was so complicated, it didn't stick. Schrodinger's equation stuck because it was based on wave mechanics and differential equations, something physicists already intuitively understood. Now we know both matrix and wave mechanics are essentially equal and we often use both types of math to solve problems. For example, the binding energy values that fall out of the Schrodinger equation are also easily viewed as Eigenvalues of a matrix. In addition, matrices are able to solve systems of linear equations. As far as this topic goes, I have a great video about what can happen if we become too philosophical. It is a recording of one of my contemporary heroes:

Yes, your two hole experiment is the same thing as the double slit experiment. I think some of your confusion comes from the fact that you are ignoring that these particles have wave like behaviour. It some sense calling them waves or particles is not accurate at all, but these simplistic models are the best the human brain can conjure to develop some type of intuition of what is going on. When both slits are open and the distance between the slits is small enough, the electron's wave like properties are noted. The electron in essence can propagate as a wave and interfere with it's self as is passes through both slits. Do you remember learning about constructive and destructive interference in physics? It is this destructive and constructive interference that causes the characteristic pattern seen when both slits are open. You would see the same thing using light waves. Yes, one interpretation is that the electron passes through both slits and interferes with it's self. Edit: Unfortunately, we do people a great dis-service when we anthropomorphise these objects. We are not trying to "fool" electrons. We are making measurements and noting that the act of measuring changes the outcome.

Particles are not aware. One component of the double slit experiment that is easy to understand is the following: First, we need to define the energy of light as a wave. Energy can be defined as the product of a coefficient called Planck's constant that we will state as being "h" multiplied by the frequency that will be called "v." Therefore E = hu. The wavelength of light can be defined as being equal to the speed of light "c" divided by frequency or Y = c/v. We can combine both concepts into a unified formula: Energy = Planck's constant * speed of light / wavelength or E = hc/Y From this understanding, we can agree that the smaller the wavelength the more energy of the light. When we attempt to "look" at something as small as an electron, we need to use very small wavelengths of light. Unfortunately, this also means we are hitting the electron with very high energies and disturbing the "system." The following is the easiest and most intuitive concept to understand. However, the world of the small is fundamentally non-deterministic and governed by something called the uncertainty principle. It may be natural to assume some sort of intelligence is involved, but the reality is much more complicated. Hope that helps. *Also, the double slit experiment is not literally as commonly demonstrated when dealing with particles that have rest mass. We typically have to scatter these particles off of crystalline solids, but the net result is the same as running the "traditional" double slit experiment.

You are correct, but programmes must implement policies that do the greatest good for the greatest number of students. I do see changes however. Social media and technology is shaping the way we currently look at education. We cannot deny the impact of people such as Salman Khan.

The older I get and the more clarity I gain about our relationship with the universe, the more death bothers me. There will likely never be another me. All my experiences are unique and when I die, that's it. I will never again exist in the physical world. Additionally, most of the known universe is so exceptionally hostile that life as we know it is impossible. This makes my existence and the existence of humanity all that much more precious.

Unfortunately, the Prussian educational system still rules. However, many programmes reinforce learning in multiple ways. This is part of the reason nursing schools incorporate labs, videos, paper writing, research, drug cards, care plans, group activities and so on. It allows a programme to employ multiple methods and reach as many people as possible. Offering a class for every learning style in a single programme would be a massive financial and logistical undertaking. I'm not sure it could realistically be completed. For example, I teach an allied physics class. I could not imagine having several sections of my class to cover every learning style. First, that would be a massive amount of time spent on a three credit class. Next, where would we find the space? Additionally, where will the money and logistical support come from? Finally, how do I ensure all the students have learned the material if the results of standard testing end up all over the place? Instead, I incorporate multiple techniques such as demonstration, group work, experimentation and you tube videos along with traditional lecturing in order to appeal as broadly as possible. Also remember nursing programmes are accredited. Most likely, her programme is state and hopefully NLNAC accredited. These bodies mandate certain requirements and the nursing programmes often structure their curricula in order to meet said requirements. I remember absolutely hating our weekly article review assignments in respiratory school. Turns out, my programme mandated this because part of CoARC accreditation mandates a research component, a requirement that was met by doing article reviews. To the OP. We all become amotivated and discouraged. Thirty weeks may seem like a long time, but it is deceivingly short. I too thought nursing school would last forever. Over ten years later, I guarantee you, it's a drop in the bucket of life. Push on and you'll receive the prize soon enough.

I remember doing some very stupid things and taking some big risks when I was younger. I hope people would be capable of looking past that and judge me based on the person that I have grown up to be.

Agreed Dwayne. In education, I find there is a pervasive attitude that we need to beat people up because that's what happened to us. Then, we complain that our contemporary counterparts are soft and entitled when people take issue with arbitrary "ball" busting. If the contemporary providers are in fact as commonly described, then that is a reflection on the people who fostered the creation of said attitudes. Either way, the "harden up Chuck" ideology is our failure. My litmus test for mandating an exercise is never based on what I had to do but rather does said activity promote the educational goals and mission statement of the educational programme. Also remember, as we mandate that people need to harden up, we should examine our own lives. I bet there have been times where we were vulnerable, lost, confused and in need of compassion and empathy. There is a time and place for "tough love," but we need to make sure it's done for the proper reasons. As for the question at hand, my biggest issue is the fact that I think I sometimes articulate in a way that comes off as being overly pretentious and complicated. Sometimes that occurs here.

Yeah, it is tough. I remember much of this stuff simply because I receive repeated exposure. It is also tough to try to teach mechanisms and pathways to paramedic students because they often do not have the background to intuitively understand the concepts. It becomes an "in one ear and out the other" exercise. In all honesty, even among other allied health students such as respiratory who have additional science prerequisites, I would say most end up forgetting the fine details after making it through pharmacology. It's the nature of the beast so to speak. You teach to a somewhat arbitrary standard in many cases and hope critical concepts end up sticking. If you are lucky, you find a forum such as this and engage in frequent episodes of mental masturbation to keep your self sharp. (As is the case currently)

When you administer albuterol and it activates a Beta 2 receptor, most paramedics are taught: B2 ---> magic occurs ---> bronchodilation. (I mean no offense to paramedics by the way.) However, the process is a bit more complicated. This response is known as a g protein coupled response. In a nutshell, the activated B2 receptor activates g proteins in the cell membrane. G proteins in turn activate adenyl cyclase and adenyl cyclase assists with the conversion of ATP into cAMP. cAMP interacts with receptors on actin/myosin cross bridges and this is what essentially leads to bronchodilation. You could in essence say that increased cAMP equals smooth muscle relaxation and bronchodilation. Glucagon has it's own receptor, but that receptor is also g protein coupled and one of the outcomes of glucagon receptor activation is an increase in cAMP production. In theory, this sounds like a nice "back door" mechanism for bronchodilation. Unfortunately, the data that I have seen is not conclusive and some studies contradict each other. I would say the evidence for the use of glucagon in this case is relatively weak, but I do not think it would necessarily be harmful.

Unfortunately, there is no best drug ever. It would be myopic to assume a tool can work in every situation. As I've already stated, ketamine has a significant side effect profile and will be associated with significant side effects in certain patients.