Pragmatism emphasizes practical consequences and empirical explanations rather than introspective contemplations. However, the arguments of pragmatists are not uniform, as shown by the four prominent pragmatists presented in this article. The major difference between them is that Peirce and Haack acknowledge an objective truth, whereas James and Rorty do not. Thus, for a fuller understanding of the pragmatist view of our knowledge, both camps must be consulted. In the nursing field, pragmatism is occasionally referred to as a guiding philosophy. However, (...) the influence of James and Rorty has been greater than that of Peirce and Haack on pragmatists, which may risk leading to a skewed understanding of pragmatism by nursing scholars. Still, the four pragmatists share naturalism, which rejects a metaphysics that defines the nature of knowledge before our enquiry and emphasizes experience and practice. Pragmatic naturalism can help ensure that nursing theory does not deviate from clinical practice. This article also explores the broad adaptability of the ideas of all four pragmatists to philosophical issues in nursing, such as mixed‐methods research, epistemic relativism and realism. By showing that pragmatism can be relevant and stimulating to each of these topics, the article demonstrates that the different approaches to pragmatism can provide more inspiration for nurses and nursing researchers in the future. (shrink)

The use of correlational probability values (p‐values) as a means of evaluating evidence in nursing and health care has largely been accepted uncritically. There are reasons to be concerned about an uncritical adherence to the use of significance testing, which has been located in the natural science paradigm. p‐values have served in hypothesis and statistical testing, such as in randomized controlled trials and meta‐analyses to support what has been portrayed as the highest levels of evidence in the framework of evidence‐based (...) practice. Nursing has been minimally involved in the rich debate about the controversies of treating significance testing as evidentiary in the health and social sciences. In this paper, we join the dialogue by examining how and why this statistical mechanism has become entrenched as the gold standard for determining what constitutes legitimate scientific knowledge in the postpositivistic paradigm. We argue that nursing needs to critically reflect on the limitations associated with this tool of the evidence‐based movement, given the complexities and contextual factors that are inherent to nursing epistemology. Such reflection will inform our thinking about what constitutes substantive knowledge for the nursing discipline. (shrink)

In this essay, I advance an argument against the expansion and acceptance of postmodern metaphysical antirealist ideologies in the development of nursing theory in North America. I suggest mystical theoretical explanations of care, the rejection of empirical epistemology, and a return to divinity in nursing represent an intellectual dead end, as these ideas do little to help resolve real‐world health issues and also negate the need for the academic discrimination of bad ideas. I examine some of the philosophical foundations of (...) nursing theory and deconstruct some of the more preternatural theories that have become established as the dominant conventional wisdom in the academy. It is argued that this can be characterized as a form of self‐deception, and overall has had a negative impact on advancement of the nursing profession and public health care. Reasons behind the widespread acceptance of these irrational theoretical stances in nursing and the ongoing support for mystical therapeutic interventions are explored. (shrink)