Question

...
alex

Has anybody found some Psychotherapies seem logically inconsistent?

I was reading about some of the philosophies behind certain psychological interventions. And I find some of them what appears to be illogical. Im not against therapy at all im just questioning the hidden assumptions in them.

Am I right to assume it’s impossible to really test any therapy and call it empirically backed? How can you do a double blind study on mindfullness ? I like my Popperian severe testing.   Acceptance and commitment therapy and cognitive behavior therapy presumes the feelings behind anxiety and depression are caused by thoughts by outside stimuli that causes emotional states. Isn’t this Deterministic and leaves out Neurology, automatic body function and circumstance ? It seems to be unfalsifiable. If it works good! If someone isn’t improving instead of questing the assumptions of these therapies  it’s put back on the patient saying that they need to change the way they think.  Furthermore it seems to confound the symptoms as the actual cause. 

Why should I accept the premise that emotional states are caused by thoughts ?  If I drink 10 cups of coffee I’ll have severe anxiety and then have negative thinking patterns. Am I overthinking this ? 

asked on Saturday, May 28, 2022 05:43:45 AM by alex

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments
...
1
TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

I might just be having a slow day, but...what's the relevance of this to logical fallacies?

posted on Saturday, May 28, 2022 11:54:41 AM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Trevor Folley
1

Are you accusing those that (e.g.) presume the feelings behind anxiety are caused by thoughts are saying that anxiety can only be caused by thoughts (causal reductionism)?

I think you might be affirming a disjunct.

answered on Wednesday, Jun 01, 2022 12:36:50 PM by Trevor Folley

Trevor Folley Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
0
TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

Why would this be affirming one disjunct?

posted on Wednesday, Jun 01, 2022 03:36:32 PM
...
1
Trevor Folley writes:
[To Rationalissimus of the Elenchus]

P or Q
P
Therefore not Q

"Why should I accept the premise that emotional states are caused by thoughts ?  If I drink 10 cups of coffee I’ll have severe anxiety and then have negative thinking patterns."

This might imply (not claiming to be able to read their mind) an inference that because CBT practitioners assert that emotional states are caused by thoughts they are asserting that they can't be caused (affected) by other means.

It is a logical fallacy to assume that because emotional states are caused by thoughts (P) that they are not caused by caffeine (Q).

If they are asserting that CBT practitioners are believe that emotional states are only affected by thoughts then I assert they are just mistaken.

[ login to reply ] posted on Thursday, Jun 02, 2022 06:43:07 AM
...
0
TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To Trevor Folley]

'CBT practitioners assert that emotional states are caused by thoughts. Thus, they can't be caused by anything else.'

Surely this would just be a strawman fallacy? The critics of CBT are saying that because CBT practitioners assert emotional states are caused by thoughts, they have no other cause - i.e. they're accusing CBT'ers of causal reductionism. But CBT'ers aren't saying that there is only one cause, they are merely offering one cause.

I'm a dolt. I think I get what you mean now. Critics of CBT are rejecting the above proposition, because they think that, if emotional states are caused by thoughts, they can't be caused by anything else.

[ login to reply ] posted on Thursday, Jun 02, 2022 01:06:57 PM