Part of my self-directed obligation as a psychotherapist who practices rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT) is to advocate use of logic and reasoning. Addressing this subjective duty, I stated in a blogpost entitled Logic and Reason:
I’m aware that an observed trend over the past decade has been to abandon logic and reason for faith-based (not necessarily religious), emotive, and ideologically-driven arguments. It’s worth noting that I reject these practices.
Pretending as though people possess their own truth, create anything more than mere perceptual reality, or can simply deconstruct what is while replacing it with what they think ought to be is illogical and unreasonable. It’s quite irrational.
In order for a thought, belief, proposition, argument, or statement to be considered rational it must remain in accordance with both logic and reason. Perhaps briefly defining these corresponding terms is in order.
Logic is defined as a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration: the science of the formal principles of reasoning. To provide an example of the logical process, consider the following syllogism—a deductive scheme of a formal argument:
Form (modus ponens) –
If p, then q; p; therefore, q.
Example:
If you want to resolve the obesity problem in a country (major premise), then force all obese people to stop eating (minor premise).
You want to resolve the obesity problem in a country.
Therefore, force all obese people to stop eating (conclusion).
This syllogistic proposition follows logical form. However, I argue that its minor premise is unreasonable. This is because there are more contributing factors to the obesity problem than solely the act of eating.
Therefore, the syllogistic proposal is irrational, because it isn’t in accordance with both logic and reason. Presuming that you understand the concept of rationality and how logic plays a key role in the matter, you may be wondering what reasoning is.
Reasoning is defined as the use of reason—a statement offered in explanation or justification, a rational ground or motive, the thing that makes some fact intelligible, and a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense, especially: the drawing of inferences or conclusions through the use of reason.
Revisiting the example of an obesity problem, it may be more reasonable to educate a country’s population about proper nutrition and physical training, provide incentives for physical fitness, and explore the elements of purpose and meaning rather than forcing people to stop eating.
Noteworthy, advocacy for use of logic and reasoning when practicing REBT is facilitated through psychoeducational lessons such as the current blogpost. To better aid in your understanding of reasoning, herein I’ll present various forms of rational techniques I often use.
Syllogistic reasoning – According to one source:
Syllogistic reasoning lies at the intriguing intersection of natural and formal reasoning of language and logic. Syllogisms comprise a formal system of reasoning yet make use of natural language quantifiers (e.g., all, some) and invite natural language conclusions.
The conclusions people tend to draw from syllogisms, however, deviate substantially from the purely logical system.
When using overt qualifiers (e.g., all people with mental health diagnoses), it’s important to bear in mind whether or not both logic and reason apply in regard to syllogistic reasoning (e.g., some people with mental health diagnoses are aggressive). For instance, consider the following:
Major premise: All people with mental health diagnoses are mammals.
Minor premise: Some mammals are aggressive.
Conclusion: Some people with mental health diagnoses are aggressive.
This is a reasonable conclusion, as some people with mental health diagnoses actually are quite aggressive. Of course, not all people with these diagnoses behave in an aggressive manner. Now, consider the following unreasonable proposition:
Major premise: All men with mental health diagnoses are mammals.
Minor premise: Some mammals are female.
Conclusion: Some men with mental health diagnoses are female.
Although in the illogical and unreasonable state of society in which nonsensical arguments rule the day, the conclusion established in the second syllogism isn’t reasonable. Men are not females, no matter what mental health diagnosis or activistic movement suggests otherwise.
Deductive reasoning – According to one source:
Deductive reasoning is a logical approach where you progress from general ideas to specific conclusions. It’s often contrasted with inductive reasoning, where you start with specific observations and form general conclusions.
When using deductive reasoning while practicing REBT, a person maintains an irrational belief about a particular event. Worth noting, such assumptions are often influenced by distorted inferences which produce rigid conclusions through the application of different premises:
Major premise: All people who drive under the speed limit in the fast lane are assholes!
Minor premise: There’s a person driving in front of me, going 60 mph in a 75 mph lane.
Conclusion: Therefore, the person driving in front of me, going 60 mph in a 75 mph lane is an asshole!
The general belief about slower drivers equating to assholes commits the error of a global evaluation—negatively rating the individual without considering balanced evidence to the contrary. Thus, the specific conclusion reached in this regard is an irrational one.
Inductive reasoning – According to one source:
Inductive reasoning uses specific and limited observations to draw general conclusions that can be applied more widely. So while deductive reasoning is more of a top-down approach — moving from a general premise to a specific case — inductive reasoning is the opposite. It uses a bottom-up approach to generate new premises, or hypotheses, based on observed patterns.
Not all forms of reasoning require use of a well-formatted syllogism. For instance, consider the following limited observation used to draw a general conclusion:
Observational data: My anus tends to itch if I don’t wipe properly.
Hypothesis: Improper wiping causes anal discomfort.
Of course, I used a hyperbolic example to see who has actually read this far in the blogpost. For those individuals eager to learn more about REBT and who’ve made it this far in the post, allow me to illustrate a more pragmatic example of inductive reasoning:
Data: If ever my boss approaches my cubical toward the end of the day, I’m usually asked to stay late.
Irrational belief: It’s toward the end of the day and here comes my boss; therefore, I can’t stand being manipulated into staying late.
The limited observation used to form a general and self-disturbing belief in this example commits the error or low frustration tolerance—unproductively convincing oneself that a situation is intolerable. Thus, the specific conclusion reached in this regard is an irrational one.
Abductive reasoning – According to one source:
Abductive reasoning typically begins with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the set. Abductive reasoning yields the kind of daily decision-making that does its best with the information at hand, which often is incomplete.
One obvious example of abductive reasoning relates to mental, emotional, and behavioral health diagnoses. As an example, after an initial session with a new client, I may develop a working hypothesis based on limited information about the person’s reported symptoms.
I may diagnose a person with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). However, after a number of subsequent sessions, I may modify the GAD diagnosis when considering additional evidence. For instance, the individual may actually qualify for a posttraumatic stress disorder diagnosis.
Analogical reasoning – According to one source:
An analogy is a comparison between two objects, or systems of objects, that highlights respects in which they are thought to be similar. Analogical reasoning is any type of thinking that relies upon an analogy.
An analogical argument is an explicit representation of a form of analogical reasoning that cites accepted similarities between two systems to support the conclusion that some further similarity exists.
In general (but not always), such arguments belong in the category of ampliative reasoning, since their conclusions do not follow with certainty but are only supported with varying degrees of strength.
Are you familiar with the 1994 comedy-drama film Forrest Gump? If so, you’re probably familiar with the analogous quote, “Life was like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re gonna get.” (Also, I just used deductive reasoning to make my point about the film quote.)
If one accepts the major premise (life is like a box of chocolates) and minor premise (you never know what you’re gonna get), then an individual can conclude that life is an overall uncertain experience. This particular analogical reasoning example is rational.
Causal reasoning – According to one source:
Many individuals attempt to explain the causes of certain events through analysis of different aspects of an event. This method is called causal reasoning. What is causal reasoning? It is the use of logic and facts to determine cause and effect relationships.
There are three types of causal reasoning definitions, which are dependent on the certainty and validity of the conclusion based on how data is used. These types of reasoning are deduction, induction, and abduction.
Herein, deduction, induction, and abduction have thus far been addressed. In regard to REBT, when considering causal reasoning, it’s important to understand what I discussed in a blogpost entitled Correlation Does Not Imply Causation:
Correlation is defined as a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone. Essentially, the term suggests a relationship.
Causation is defined as the act or agency which produces an effect. This term relates to causality which is defined as the relation between a cause and its effect or between regularly correlated events or phenomena. Here, a relationship exists though which is causal in nature.
REBT theory maintains that when an unexpected Activating event (“Action”) occurs and a person uses an irrational Belief about the situation, it’s one’s unhelpful attitude and not the undesirable circumstance that causes unpleasant emotional, bodily sensation, and behavioral Consequences.
Rather than remaining self-disturbed, an individual is invited to try Disputation which may lead to an Effective new belief that’s used in place of an unproductive self-narrative. With the ABC model, a person learns to stop needless suffering which is caused by unhelpful assumptions.
When contemplating cause-and-effect (causal) reasoning from an REBT perspective, take into account that there’s not an action-consequence connection. Rather, what causes unpleasant outcomes from a psychological standpoint is a belief-consequence (B-C) connection.
As an example, your preferred presidential candidate doesn’t prevail in an election (Action) and you unfavorably Believe, “People absolutely should’ve voted in a similar manner as me, and because they didn’t I can’t stand those assholes!”
Use of demandingness, low frustration tolerance, and global evaluations—all irrational beliefs—serves as a catalyst for the B-C connection. When unhelpfully Believing as you do, you then become angry (Consequence). Thus, it’s important to understand causal reasoning relationships.
Critical thinking – According to one source:
Critical thinking is defined as the ability to think clearly and rationally, understanding the logical connection between ideas. In essence, critical thinking requires candidates to use their ability to find the reason behind everything. Being an active learner rather than a passive recipient of information, is what would define critical reasoning/thinking.
A good critical thinker will question ideas and assumptions rather than accepting them as it is. They always seek to determine whether the ideas, arguments and findings represent the entire picture of any given statement or not.
Perhaps one of the most important aspects of REBT is an individual’s ability to think critically. Although it’s arguably not a standalone form of reasoning, I’ve included this useful skill as a means of checking your understanding of reasoning thus far. Now, consider the following syllogism:
Form (hypothetical) –
If p, then q; if q, then r; therefore, if p, then r.
Example –
If you don’t have time during your day to critically think about news stories, then you should trust the information provided by legacy media outlets.
If you should trust the information provided by legacy media outlets, then you’re likely to be mis- or dis-informed in regard to news stories.
Therefore, if you don’t have time during your day to critically think about news stories, then you’re likely to be mis- or dis-informed in regard to news stories.
Well, what do you think? Are the premises which comprise the syllogism both logical and reasonable? Is the established conclusion rational? Critical thinking is necessary in order to properly evaluate propositions such as these.
Probabilistic reasoning – According to one source:
Probabilistic reasoning is a frequently used form of numerical reasoning that contextualizes samples within distributions. It allows people to not have to represent every detail of every sample that they observe, instead they can have the data summarized with a small number of parameters that describe the distribution. Understanding data distributions is important in many contexts.
Admittedly, the description of this form of reasoning may seem daunting. Therefore, it may be helpful to simplify this matter by going straight into examples:
· Sleep deprivation, inadequate nutrition, lack of physical training (exercise), impoverished social connections, and other detriments to a holistic approach to behavioral health may not cause depressive symptoms in every person, though impairments of this kind may increase the likelihood of a dismal psychological and physiological outcome.
· The likelihood of merely feeling better when receiving mental health services from a psychotherapeutic modality other than REBT is unclear, though there’s some probability that such cathartic effects won’t last very long.
· The improvement in symptoms of a single client who seeks mental health treatment may be uncertain, with some probability of actually getting better or not.
When considering probabilistic reasoning, probabilities are assessed with respect to a body of knowledge available at the time. As additional information is received, one may adjust the probabilistic outcome regarding rational or irrational propositions.
Decompositional reasoning – According to one source:
Decompositional reasoning is the process of breaking things into constituent parts to understand the function of each component and how it contributes to the operation of the item as a whole. By analyzing each part independently, decompositional reasoning allows an observer to draw powerful conclusions about the whole.
When practicing REBT, I may use decompositional reasoning when disputing irrational beliefs. Regarding this matter, one source states:
This is clearly connected to the idea of unravelling. We may need to take something apart to understand how it is composed or works, and we can see how an analytic project may have a decompositional–compositional structure. We need to identify the key elements that enable us to explain how something is put together or works.
I decompose the irrational beliefs of clients in order to illustrate how the B-C connection causes unpleasant outcomes. Once this is accomplished, clients are then invited to compose effective new beliefs which better serve their interests and goals.
Reductive reasoning – According to one source:
Reductive reasoning breaks down complex concepts or systems into their individual components to understand the whole. While this approach is valuable for understanding the constituent parts of a system, it can overlook the interactions between these parts, context, and emergent properties of the system as a whole.
Decompositional and reductive reasoning are similar. Regarding the latter, the idea is to observe a complete complex system (e.g., cognitive process) and reduce individual components for clarity of understanding (i.e., how the B-C connection functions).
To highlight a relatively recent global example of reductive reasoning, one need only reflect upon the COVID-19 pandemic response. Many countries promoted a so-called vaccine as the main means of attaining improved individual and collective health.
However, perhaps due to perverse incentives and an anti-scientific process (i.e., “the science”), physical fitness, exposure to sun-promoting effects of vitamin D, and other therapeutic remedies were collectively shunned. That form of reductive reasoning was, at times, deadly.
Defeasible reasoning – According to one source:
Reasoning is defeasible when the corresponding argument is rationally compelling but not deductively valid. The truth of the premises of a good defeasible argument provide support for the conclusion, even though it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
In other words, the relationship of support between premises and conclusion is a tentative one, potentially defeated by additional information.
Although this form of reasoning may seem confusing, I suspect that by providing examples of this cognitive process you’ll better understand how it functions. Consider the following:
· Suppose you infer that the man who raised you is your biological father, because you’ve been led to believe this bit of information throughout your life. However, your inference is defeasible, because it could be upended if you later take a DNA test and learn that you aren’t related to the man.
· If you maintain that everyone else thinks and believes in a similar fashion as you do, but then you’re exposed to multiple TikTokers who claim to have aphantasia— a condition whereby the mind doesn’t utilize mental imagery as a factor in thinking or imagination, your conclusion is defeasible.
· The inference that ostriches bury their heads in the ground is defeasible, because ostriches don’t behave in such a manner.
It’s important to understand how defeasible reasoning works so that you can remain open to changing your mind, or adopting new beliefs, during moments of self-disturbance. Without this level of openness, it’s unlikely that you’ll adopt a lifestyle of rational living.
Ultimately, I advocate the use of both logic and reasoning in order to promote overall wellness. Herein, I’ve provided examples of different types of reasoning which I hope have been of some value to you. If you’d like to know more about my approach to REBT, I’m here to help.
If you’re looking for a provider who works to help you understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.
As a psychotherapist, I’m pleased to help people with an assortment of issues ranging from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.
At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply helping you to feel better, I want to help you get better!
Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW
References:
Aiken, S. (2023, November 21). Causal reasoning definition, methods & examples. Study.com. Retrieved from https://study.com/academy/lesson/causal-reasoning-definition-examples.html
Bartha, P. (2019, January 25). Analogy and analogical reasoning. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-analogy/
Beaney, M. (2024, July 18). Analysis. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/
Bhandari, P. (2023, June 22). What is deductive reasoning? | Explanation & examples. Scribbr. Retrieved from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/deductive-reasoning/
Bradford, A., Weisberger, M., and Lanese, N. (2024, March 6). What’s the difference between deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning? Live Science. Retrieved from https://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html
Butte College. (n.d.). Tip sheet: Deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning. Retrieved from https://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/reasoning.html
Drew, C. (2023, September 24). Reductive reasoning: Definition and examples. Helpful Professor. Retrieved from https://helpfulprofessor.com/reductive-reasoning/
Hollings, D. (2024, October 18). ABC model. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/abc-model
Hollings, D. (2024, July 9). Absolutistic should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/absolutistic-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2022, August 26). AntiFACTser: A pandemic of the unFACTsinated. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/antifactser-a-pandemic-of-the-unfactsinated
Hollings, D. (2024, November 15). Assumptions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/assumptions
Hollings, D. (2024, May 30). Behavioral health care. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/behavioral-health-care
Hollings, D. (2024, November 10). Catharsis. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/catharsis
Hollings, D. (2024, March 19). Consequences. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/consequences
Hollings, D. (2024, October 27). Correlation does not imply causation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/correlation-does-not-imply-causation
Hollings, D. (2024, November 4). Critical thinking. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/critical-thinking
Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/demandingness
Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer
Hollings, D. (2024, March 28). Distorted inferences. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/distorted-inferences
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Empirical should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/empirical-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use
Hollings, D. (2024, April 2). Four major irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/four-major-irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better
Hollings, D. (2023, September 13). Global evaluations. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/global-evaluations
Hollings, D. (2022, May 31). Holistic approach to mental health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/holistic-approach-to-mental-health
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/
Hollings, D. (2024, October 21). Impermanence and uncertainty. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/impermanence-and-uncertainty
Hollings, D. (2024, May 10). Inferred meaning. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/inferred-meaning
Hollings, D. (2022, November 8). Information overload. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/information-overload
Hollings, D. (2024, January 2). Interests and goals. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/interests-and-goals
Hollings, D. (2023, May 18). Irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching
Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason
Hollings, D. (2022, December 2). Low frustration tolerance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/low-frustration-tolerance
Hollings, D. (2022, June 23). Meaningful purpose. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/meaningful-purpose
Hollings, D. (2024, November 6). Media. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/media
Hollings, D. (2024, March 4). Mental, emotional, and behavioral health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/mental-emotional-and-behavioral-health
Hollings, D. (2023, February 27). Mental health days. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/mental-health-days
Hollings, D. (2024, September 27). My attitude. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/my-attitude
Hollings, D. (2024, April 22). On disputing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-disputing
Hollings, D. (2023, September 3). On feelings. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-feelings
Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth
Hollings, D. (2023, December 25). Perception isn’t reality. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/perception-isn-t-reality
Hollings, D. (2024, February 10). Perverse incentives. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/perverse-incentives
Hollings, D. (2024, May 26). Principles. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/principles
Hollings, D. (2024, January 1). Psychoeducation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychoeducation
Hollings, D. (2023, September 15). Psychotherapeutic modalities. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapeutic-modalities
Hollings, D. (2024, May 5). Psychotherapist. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapist
Hollings, D. (2022, March 24). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy-rebt
Hollings, D. (2024, May 15). Rational living. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-living
Hollings, D. (2024, January 20). Reliability vs. validity. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/reliability-vs-validity
Hollings, D. (2024, January 4). Rigid vs. rigorous. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rigid-vs-rigorous
Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance
Hollings, D. (2024, April 21). Sensation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/sensation
Hollings, D. (2022, October 7). Should, must, and ought. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/should-must-and-ought
Hollings, D. (2024, February 27). Suffering, struggling, and battling vs. experiencing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/suffering-struggling-and-battling-vs-experiencing
Hollings, D. (2023, October 17). Syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/syllogism
Hollings, D. (2022, December 23). The A-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-a-c-connection
Hollings, D. (2022, December 25). The B-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-b-c-connection
Hollings, D. (2022, November 2). The critical A. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-critical-a
Hollings, D. (2024, September 17). The E-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-e-c-connection
Hollings, D. (2022, December 14). The is-ought problem. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-is-ought-problem
Hollings, D. (2023, August 6). The science. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-science
Hollings, D. (2023, February 16). Tna. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/tna
Hollings, D. (2024, June 19). Treatment vs. management. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/treatment-vs-management
Hollings, D. (2024, March 18). Unhealthy vs. healthy negative emotions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unhealthy-vs-healthy-negative-emotions
Hollings, D. (2024, April 10). Welcome to complex systems. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/welcome-to-complex-systems
Hollings, D. (2024, September 29). Well, well, well. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/well-well-well
Indeed Editorial Team. (2024, August 15). 7 types of reasoning (with definitions and examples). Indeed. Retrieved from https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/types-of-reasoning
Koons, R. (2021, June 25). Defeasible reasoning. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-defeasible/
Liamnstevens. (n.d.). Ampliative reasoning part 1. Quizlet. Retrieved from https://quizlet.com/ca/317288013/ampliative-reasoning-part-1-flash-cards/
Liu, X. and McDuff, D. (2024, October 21). Evaluating and enhancing probabilistic reasoning in language models. Google Research. Retrieved from https://research.google/blog/evaluating-and-enhancing-probabilistic-reasoning-in-language-models/
Storyset. (n.d.). Curiosity brain concept illustration [Image]. Freepik. Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/free-vector/curiosity-brain-concept-illustration_30590323.htm#fromView=search&page=1&position=25&uuid=4d2a4684-ef99-46d5-9747-72210d457864
Tessler, M. H., Tenenbaum, J. B., and Goodman, N. D. (2022, July). Logic, probability, and pragmatics in syllogistic reasoning. Topics in Cognitive Science. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35005842/
Testbook. (2023, July 28). Critical reasoning: Key concepts, solved examples, & prep tips. Testbook Edu Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Retrieved from https://testbook.com/reasoning/critical-reasoning
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Forrest Gump. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrest_Gump
Comentarios