Empirical Dispute

[DISCLAIMER]

Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) is a psychotherapeutic modality that, in part, uses a scientific approach to mental, emotional, and behavioral health (collectively “mental health”). Regarding the scientific method used in this way, one source thusly describes it:

It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; the testability of hypotheses, experimental and the measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.

The late psychologist who developed REBT, Albert Ellis, created the ABC model to illustrate that when an undesirable Action occurs and you Believe an unhelpful script about the event, it’s your unfavorable assumption, not the occurrence itself, that causes an unpleasant Consequence.

Addressing how people upset themselves with unhelpful attitudes, the ABC model incorporates Disputation of unproductive philosophies of life in order to explore Effective new beliefs. Whereas rigid beliefs cause self-disturbance, flexible beliefs result in an un-disturbed condition.

While there are various forms of dispute used in REBT, one of my favorite is an empirical dispute. For context, the American Psychological Association (APA) thusly defines “empirical”:

1. derived from or denoting experimentation or systematic observations as the basis for conclusion or determination, as opposed to speculative, theoretical, or exclusively reason-based approaches. Many forms of research attempt to gain empirical evidence in favor of a hypothesis by manipulating an independent variable and assessing the effect on an outcome or dependent variable.

2. based on experience.

When providing psychoeducational lessons on REBT, I summarize empirical disputes as experience-based experiments. Regarding “reason-based approaches” when disputing, I find it helpful to assess whether or not beliefs are rational (in accordance with both logic and reason).

Here, “logic” is the interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable, and “reason” is a statement offered in explanation or justification. For instance, a modus ponens syllogism uses the following logical form: If p, then q; p; therefore, q.

As an example, if I place my hand in fire from or on a hot heating element of a kitchen stovetop (p), then I’ll receive a burn (q). I place my hand in fire from or on a hot heating element of a kitchen stovetop (p). Therefore, I’ll receive a burn (q).

This proposition follows logical form. Likewise, the logic follows (the conclusion is a necessary and inevitable consequence of one or more premises). Therefore, the proposal is reasonable. Now, consider an irrational proposition using the same modus ponens logical form.

If I place my hand in fire from or on a hot heating element of a kitchen stovetop (p), then the Earth may spontaneously combust (q). I place my hand in fire from or on a hot heating element of a kitchen stovetop (p). Therefore, the Earth may spontaneously combust (q).

This proposal follows logical form, in that it adheres to a predictive formulation (i.e., if p, then q; p; therefore, q). However, it isn’t reasonable to conclude that placing one’s hand in fire from or on a hot heating element of a kitchen stovetop correlates with or causes the Earth’s destruction.

While I enjoy using “reasoned-based approaches” to disputing, per the APA’s allusion, the empirical dispute is often necessary in order for people to fully develop knowledge, wisdom, and understanding about how it is that they upset themselves and impact their mental health.

In simple terms, some people empirically must burn their hands in order to understand that placing one’s hand in fire from or on a hot heating element of a kitchen stovetop causes pain from a burned hand. Ergo, empirical disputes are experience-based experiments.

One challenge I’ve encountered when using this form of dispute is that some people irrationally deny truth about reality. For context, I stated in a blogpost entitled On Truth:

The unpolished definition of truth relates to that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality. Incidentally, “true” is defined as accurate or exact information in accordance with fact or reality.

Following these standards, “reality” may be described as the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Likewise, “fact” is detailed as a thing that is known or proved to be true, as opposed to interpretation.

These defining standards follow a pattern of circular reasoning—a logical fallacy whereby the premises require proof or evidence to support a conclusion, and consequently the argument fails to persuade a person.

I’ve had relatively high-functioning clients who outright deny truth (the body of real things, events, and facts) about reality (the quality or state of being real—having objective independent existence). If we can’t agree on a description of objectivity, then disputing becomes difficult.

For instance, as an empirical approach to disputing involves assessing the truthfulness of a belief (e.g., is it true that you’re an utter failure?), client X, who doesn’t believe there’s such a thing as truth or reality, makes the challenging process of disputation unnecessarily daunting.

Favorably, I’m able to then shift to a dispute known as the elegant solution. Using this technique, I’d say something like, “Let’s temporarily assume that Y is the case. There’s no such thing as truth or reality. How does this serve your interests and goals regarding problem solving?”

Using this approach, I bear in mind what one REBT source states, “In REBT, ‘rational’ has always meant cognition that is effective or self-helping, not merely cognition that is empirically and logically valid” (page 127). Client X is free to deny truth about reality.

In this case, it’s not worth discussing with client X the matter of delusion which the APA defines as “an often highly personal idea or belief system, not endorsed by one’s culture or subculture, that is maintained with conviction in spite of irrationality or evidence to the contrary.”

“Client X,” I may say, “I’m concerned for your well-being. Therefore, I won’t invite you to consider placing your hand in fire from or on a hot heating element of a kitchen stovetop.” As I conduct my client sessions strictly via teletherapy, it’s not as though a stove is present anyway.

“Besides, you don’t even believe pain is real,” I’d continue, “so, how do you imagine that your interests and goals are served by placing your hand in fire from or on a hot heating element of a kitchen stovetop – if pain and burns aren’t a preventative reason not to do so?”

Fortunately, I don’t see many individuals like client X. Generally, the overwhelming majority of people with whom I work acknowledge some degree of reality, even when quibbling with varying descriptors of it (i.e., truth). Noteworthy, per one REBT source, REBT holds that:

[T]he scientific (logical-empirical), method so far appears to be the best (most efficient) way of discovering what techniques of psychotherapy are most workable for which people under what conditions in order for their main goals and subgoals to be achieved.

This is why one of my favorite ABC model disruptions of irrational beliefs is the empirical dispute. It affords people the ability to conduct an empirical test, which the APA defines as “the test of a hypothesis by means of experiments or other systematic observations.”

As an example, suppose client Z irrationally believes that deliberately exposing oneself to the unpleasantry of communicating with a member of the opposite political party is intolerable. In this instance, client Z uses what’s known in REBT as belief in low frustration tolerance (LFT).

“I couldn’t stand doing that,” client Z states. Rather than disputing this LFT script in our session, I could negotiate homework with client Z. Specifically, client Z would be invited to conduct a shame attacking exercise, in the interest of generating high frustration tolerance (HFT) beliefs.

Whereas the catchphrase of LFT is “I can’t stand it,” the slogan for HFT is “I can stand it!” This is true even if one doesn’t like or love talking with members of an opposite political party. Using this approach to rational living, the empirical dispute is as one REBT source suggests (page 15):

[D]isputation (D), one of the cornerstones of the [REBT] practice of therapeutic change, involves employing the scientific method of challenging and questioning anti-empirical and untenable hypotheses, as well as imperative and absolutistic assumptions (irrational beliefs) that individuals may hold about themselves, about others, and about the world, which lead to the particular interpretations and appraisals that the individual forms about the activating event [Action].

When individuals who hold irrational beliefs begin to change their unsound assumptions, to reformulate them into more empirically valid statements, and to believe strongly in the validity of the new ideas, they wind up with new cognitive (philosophical), emotive, and behavioral effects ([E]’s).

This constitutes empirical validity, which the APA defines as “the degree to which the accuracy of a test, model, or other construct can be demonstrated through experimentation and systematic observation (i.e., the accumulation of supporting research evidence) rather than theory alone.”

As such, use of the empirical dispute is intended to result in empirical knowledge, which the APA defines as “in philosophy, knowledge gained from experience rather than from innate ideas or deductive reasoning.” Think of this as knowing what happens when touching a hot stovetop.

As one source clarifies, “Sources of empirical evidence are sometimes divided into observation and experimentation, the difference being that only experimentation involves manipulation or intervention: phenomena are actively created instead of being passively observed.”

When using an empirical dispute, REBT uses an active approach to un-disturbing oneself. Simultaneously, one is encouraged to passively observe the effects of the experiment. In conclusion, using this scientific approach to disturbance, one REBT source states (page 10):

REBT advocates scientific thinking and an empirical stance to knowledge. For every belief expressed by a client, an appropriate REBT question would be, “Where is the evidence that what you believe is true?” In REBT, we seek to make better scientists of our clients so that they can acquire correct information, use evidence logically, and construct sound, self-helping beliefs.

Ultimately, experience-based experiments used in REBT are designed to target LFT and promote HFT. “Deric,” you may say, “where is the evidence that what you believe is true?” To this, I suggest that REBT has over 50 years of data to support my belief in this helpful modality.

Now, I offer you one of my favorite tools regarding the ABC model. Take into consideration that daily practice of REBT empirically must occur in order to become proficient with techniques offered by this model. Also, please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any questions.

If you’re looking for a provider who tries to work to help 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 try 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 trying to help you to feel better, I want to try to help you get better!

Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW

Photo credit (edited), fair use

References:

AEI. (n.d.). About Albert Ellis, Ph.D. Albert Ellis Institute. Retrieved from https://albertellis.org/about-albert-ellis-phd/

APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Delusion. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/delusion

APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Dependent variable (DV). American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/dependent-variable

APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Empirical. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/empirical

APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Empirical knowledge. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/empirical-knowledge

APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Empirical test. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/empirical-test

APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Empirical validity. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/empirical-validity

APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Independent variable (IV). American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/independent-variable

Carlson, J. and Knaus, W. (2014). Albert Ellis revisited. Routledge. Retrieved from https://www.pdfdrive.com/albert-ellis-revisited-d157679978.html

David, D., Cotet, C., Matu, S., Mogoase, C., and Stefan, S. (2017, September 12). 50 years of rational‐emotive and cognitive‐behavioral therapy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal for Clinical Psychology. Retrieved from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5836900/

DiGiuseppe, R. A., Doyle, K. A., Dryden, W., and Backx, W. (2013). A practitioner’s guide to rational emotive behavior therapy (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://www.pdfdrive.com/a-practitioners-guide-to-rational-emotive-behavior-therapy-d174617836.html

Ellis, A. and Bernard, M. E. (1985). Clinical applications of rational-emotive therapy. Plenum Press. Retrieved from https://www.pdfdrive.com/clinical-applications-of-rational-emotive-therapy-d176935977.html

Ellis, A. and Bernard, M. E. (2006). Rational emotive behavioral approaches to childhood disorders: Theory, practice and research. Springer. Retrieved from https://www.pdfdrive.com/rational-emotive-behavioral-approaches-to-childhood-disorders-theory-practice-and-research-d165463558.html

Hollings, D. (2025, December 1). A diagnosis is a form of hypothesis. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-diagnosis-is-a-form-of-hypothesis

Hollings, D. (2024, May 22). A philosophical approach to mental health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-philosophical-approach-to-mental-health

Hollings, D. (2024, May 24). A scientific approach to mental health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-scientific-approach-to-mental-health

Hollings, D. (2024, July 9). Absolutistic should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/absolutistic-should-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2025, October 19). Adhering to invisible scripts. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/adhering-to-invisible-scripts

Hollings, D. (2024, November 15). Assumptions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/assumptions

Hollings, D. (2025, October 31). Circular argument. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/circular-argument

Hollings, D. (2024, May 18). Cognitive distortions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/cognitive-distortions

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. (2025, June 17). Daily practice. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/daily-practice

Hollings, D. (2024, January 7). Delusion. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/delusion

Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer

Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Empirical should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/empirical-should-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2025, March 9). Factual and counterfactual beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/factual-and-counterfactual-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use

Hollings, D. (2024, May 17). Feeling better vs. getting better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/feeling-better-vs-getting-better-1

Hollings, D. (2024, February 13). Focus on the target problem. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/focus-on-the-target-problem

Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better

Hollings, D. (2024, April 13). Goals. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/goals

Hollings, D. (2024, February 24). High frustration tolerance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/high-frustration-tolerance

Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/

Hollings, D. (2025, October 23). I can’t stand it. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/i-can-t-stand-it

Hollings, D. (2024, April 27). Ideal-world vs. real-world. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/ideal-world-vs-real-world

Hollings, D. (2024, January 2). Interests and goals. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/interests-and-goals

Hollings, D. (2024, September 26). Interpreted reality. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/interpreted-reality

Hollings, D. (2025, March 4). Justification. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/justification

Hollings, D. (2025, October 13). Knowledge, wisdom, understanding. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/knowledge-wisdom-understanding

Hollings, D. (2025, January 14). Level of functioning and quality of life. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/level-of-functioning-and-quality-of-life

Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching

Hollings, D. (2022, December 9). Like it, love it, accept it. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/like-it-love-it-accept-it

Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Lived experience. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/lived-experience

Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason

Hollings, D. (2025, November 8). Logical consequence: Does it consequentially follow? Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logical-consequence-does-it-consequentially-follow

Hollings, D. (2022, December 2). Low frustration tolerance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/low-frustration-tolerance

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. (2025, November 16). Mental health, mental illness, and mental disorder. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/mental-health-mental-illness-and-mental-disorder

Hollings, D. (2025, March 16). Modus ponens. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/modus-ponens

Hollings, D. (2024, September 27). My attitude. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/my-attitude

Hollings, D. (2025, August 2). My philosophy. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/my-philosophy

Hollings, D. (2025, September 26). Observing eye and perceiving eye. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/observing-eye-and-perceiving-eye

Hollings, D. (2024, April 22). On disputing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-disputing

Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth

Hollings, D. (2025, May 3). Predictability of logic. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/predictability-of-logic

Hollings, D. (2025, November 13). Problem solving in regard to anger: How to eat an elephant. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/problem-solving-in-regard-to-anger-how-to-eat-an-elephant

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. (2025, August 13). Rational versus irrational thoughts and beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-versus-irrational-thoughts-and-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2024, May 19). Rationale for homework. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rationale-for-homework

Hollings, D. (2024, December 5). Reasoning. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/reasoning

Hollings, D. (2024, July 18). REBT flexibility. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rebt-flexibility

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, June 5). Self-help. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-help

Hollings, D. (2022, September 8). Shame attacking. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/shame-attacking

Hollings, D. (2022, June 20). Teletherapy. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/teletherapy

Hollings, D. (2025, October 22). The construct. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-construct

Hollings, D. (2022, September 19). The elegant solution. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-elegant-solution

Hollings, D. (2024, February 6). This ride inevitably ends. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/this-ride-inevitably-ends

Hollings, D. (2025, February 28). To try is my goal. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/to-try-is-my-goal

Hollings, D. (2024, June 14). Tolerance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/tolerance

Hollings, D. (2025, January 9). Traditional ABC model. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/traditional-abc-model

Hollings, D. (2024, September 29). Well, well, well. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/well-well-well

Hollings, D. (2025, April 12). What’s the big idea? Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/what-s-the-big-idea

Kriscole. (n.d.). Schematic portrait of albert Einstein with the formula in front of eyes mustache […] [Image]. Freepik. Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/premium-photo/schematic-portrait-albert-einstein-with-formula-front-eyes-mustache-hair-black_336640483.htm#fromView=search&page=2&position=27&uuid=70518cf8-acaf-49ba-b9d7-89ad2096ebdb&query=Einstein

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Deductive reasoning. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Empirical evidence. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Fallacy. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Inductive reasoning. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Scientific method. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method