For decades, cognitive behaviorists have been touting their therapy as a cure for all kinds of emotional distress. In particular, this approach addresses how irrational thoughts often lead to emotional distress. Then, it challenges those beliefs, which can turn ordinary frustration and disappointment into emotional devastation. This post uses the syllogism to demonstrates that faulty logic through the use of a syllogism. Now, cognitive behaviorists rarely present their challenges in this form. This exercise simply presents their arguments in a more structured manner.

However, we should note that clients usually seek help for their emotional pain, and rarely for irrational thinking. Furthermore, irrational beliefs are not always the primary source of their suffering. Here, logical analysis is of limited value, and other approaches can provide more helpful measures.

The Syllogism – A Useful Tool

For centuries, logicians have used the syllogism to reach valid conclusions on the basis of available knowledge. In particular, this analytic device derives a logical conclusion from two premises, which are typically widely accepted or assumed. The major premise is usually a widely-accepted generalization about characteristics of a class of objects, people, events, etc. The minor premise is often a declaration that a specific object, person, event, etc. is a member of that class. The logical conclusion is that the specific case possesses the characteristics of the class to which it belongs. Within this framework, we can apply the generalizations to particular situations, such as our own life experiences.

The major premise may also be a generalization established from an earlier inductive logic. Such facts are established as through scientific research. The minor premise

Sources of Irrational Beliefs

Some examples of syllogisms can illustrate this deductive technique. For one thing, it can help us identify possible sources of false beliefs.  At other times, the problem lies in false premises or generalizations. At other times, the difficulty is one of faulty logic. Here, some of examples can be helpful.

Examples of False Syllogisms

EXAMPLE A

Syllogism involving False Assumption

• Major Premise: Only stupid people make mistakes.
• Minor Premise: I made a mistake.
• Conclusion: Then, I guess I’m just stupid.

Syllogism involving Faulty Logic:

• Major Premise: Stupid people make mistakes.
• Minor Premise: I made a mistake.
• Conclusion: Therefore, I must be really stupid.

Challenge to the Irrational Belief and an Alternative Conclusion: Everyone makes mistakes now and then, myself included. Maybe if I try learning from my mistakes, I won’t make similar mistakes in the future.

EXAMPLE B

Syllogism involving False Premise and Logic:

• Major Premise: Alcoholics drink morning, day, and night.
• Minor Premise: I never drink before 6 p.m.
• Conclusion: Thank God I’m not an alcoholic.

Challenge to the Irrational Belief and an Alternative Conclusion: Since not all alcoholics drink all the time, maybe I should consider the possibility that I am a nighttime alcoholic, particularly since I’m so concerned that I’m not an alcoholic.

EXAMPLE C

Syllogism involving False Major Premise

• Major Premise: All emotional pain is caused by irrational beliefs.
• Minor Premise: I am really hurting over the death of my spouse.
• Conclusion: Thus, I must be crazy.

EXAMPLE D:

Syllogism involving Faulty Logic

• Major Premise: Irrational beliefs can turn normal disappointment into suffering.
• Minor Premise: I am suffering.
• Conclusion: Then, I guess I must be crazy.

Note that in the first example, the false belief (i.e., only stupid people make mistakes) and/or the faulty logic (i.e. assuming that I am stupid because I made a mistake, even though smart people make mistakes, too) result in an intensification of the negative self-assessment and its associated negative feelings, such as shame, self-loathing, discouragement, and frustration. This process can “make a mountain out of a mole hill,” whereas the challenge suggests recognizing “the silver lining around the dark cloud.” Note that the second example does not involve an intensification of a negative emotional state, but rather represents a denial of a problem that may well need attention.

Therapy’s Implicit Use of the Syllogism

If you have been in therapy with a cognitive behaviorist, you will recognize that he or she does not conduct therapy by translating beliefs and observations into syllogisms, even if that is the basic process underlying the challenge to one’s belief system. I provide these examples as a way of illustrating how cognitive behaviorists follow in the tradition of the logical empiricists, who view knowledge as attained through applying principles of logic to shared sensory experience.  As we will address later, not all challenges of living are problems which lend themselves to logical solutions, as life involves various paradoxes that defy logical solutions.