Hypotheses and Foregone Conclusions

[DISCLAIMER]

When listening to an episode of the DarkHorse Podcast in which biologist Bret Weinstein interviewed attorney Aaron Siri, it occurred to me that some people with whom I’ve practiced Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) may benefit from the message, as Weinstein stated:

What you’re describing is foregone conclusions. Right? They [pharmaceutical companies] make a product, it is presumed safe and effective, and then scientific work is done to justify those presumptions. These things [therapeutics] are not tested.

Deaths are explained away, efficacy is created by the scheme in which you decide who to test and who not to. It’s obvious scientific fraud, but superficially, what you find is work that looks scientific, that spits out conclusions, that if you don’t know how they were generated seem to justify these things.

When practicing REBT, which uses the ABC model as a scientific approach to reducing self-disturbance (how people upset themselves through use of irrational beliefs), a number of concepts addressed by Weinstein come into play. Thus, many definitions may be useful.

A foregone conclusion is a conclusion (the necessary consequence of two or more propositions taken as premises) that has preceded argument or examination; an inevitable result. When providing psychoeducational lessons on REBT, I distinguish between propositions and premises.

These are important distinctions for considering whether or not one’s beliefs are rational (in accordance with both logic and reason). According to the American Psychological Association (APA), a proposition may be defined in two ways. First:

[I]n philosophy, anything that can be asserted or denied and that is capable of being either true or false; that is, the content of a typical declarative sentence, such as Grass is green or Lenin was a great man.

When practicing the ABC model, many irrational beliefs are presented as philosophical propositions, as outlined by the first APA definition of a proposition. Second:

[I]n linguistics, a formal statement representing the underlying meaning of a sentence or sentence component, irrespective of its form. For example, the sentences I scored the goal and The goal was scored by me represent the same proposition, as would a translation of either sentence into a different language.

This second point of clarity is often enveloped by the first APA definition of a proposition. For example, a client may propose that undesirable Actions result in unpleasant Consequences. Yet, using the ABC model, no such Action-Consequence connection actually causes self-disturbance.

Rather, when an undesirable Action occurs and a client uses illogical and/or unreasonable propositions in the form of unhelpful Beliefs, then a Belief-Consequence connection better elucidates how unpleasant Consequences may result. This brings us to premises.

The APA defines a premise as “a proposition forming part of a larger argument: a statement from which a further statement is to be deduced, especially as one of a series of such steps leading to a conclusion.” Perhaps a demonstration of how premises and propositions interplay is in order.

To understand how a self-disturbing belief is often formed, contemplate the use of syllogisms. According to the APA, a syllogism is defined as

[A] form of deductive reasoning in which a categorial proposition (i.e., one taking the form all X are Y, no X are Y, some X are Y, or some X are not Y) is combined with a second proposition having one of its terms in common with the first to yield a third proposition (the conclusion).

For example, consider the following modus ponens syllogism –

If p, then q; p; therefore, q.

Premise 1: If p, then q.

Premise 2: Affirm p.

Conclusion: Conclude q.

Bear in mind that the premises in an argument, proposition, or belief of this form will always lead to the conclusion. This is the case even when the premises aren’t true.

Equally important, in order to be considered rational, the argument, proposition, or belief empirically must remain in accordance with both logic and reason. (More on that in a bit.)

Example –

If I’m going to practice REBT, then REBT absolutely must be easy.

I’m going to practice REBT.

Therefore, REBT absolutely must be easy.

Moments ago, I stated that in order to be empirically rational, an argument, proposition, or belief must remain in accordance with both logic and reason. The syllogistic example I’ve used herein follows logical form. However, do you consider the premises to be reasonable proposals?

Why must REBT be “easy” in order for one to practice this modality? Is it solely because one demands it? Although one’s rigid belief about REBT may seem reasonable to one person, could it be that other people may not concur with this inflexible assumption? I, for one, don’t.

Therefore, while a proposition based on comprised premises may follow logical form, it isn’t always reasonable. Thus, in the above modus ponens syllogism, I argue that the conclusion is irrational. Yet, as discussed by Weinstein, some people draw foregone conclusions.

Remember that these sorts of outcomes are irrationally believed to serve as “an inevitable result.” For instance, a client may illogically and/or unreasonably conclude – without evidential support for one’s belief – that REBT absolutely must be easy. No it mustn’t!

There’s no rational assessment of premises underlying this proposition. Establishing a foregone conclusion, the client simply determines that REBT absolutely must be easy. Using this belief, the client then self-disturbs through use of the B-C connection when REBT isn’t “easy” to use.

Regarding the pharmaceutical industry, Weinstein stated that “scientific work is done to justify those presumptions” similar to clients disturbing themselves with foregone conclusions. This is why understanding of the “scientific work” is necessary in order to un-disturb oneself.

Many people with whom I’ve practiced REBT have poor comprehension about how science works. When using the process of disputation (rigorously challenging irrational beliefs) and then negotiating homework to test conclusions, it’s important to know about the scientific method:

The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge through careful observation, rigorous skepticism, hypothesis testing, and experimental validation. Developed from ancient and medieval practices, it acknowledges that cognitive assumptions can distort the interpretation of the observation. […]

In more detail: the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypothetical explanations), predicting the logical consequences of hypothesis, then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.

A hypothesis is a conjecture based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question. Hypotheses can be very specific or broad but [empirically] must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.

While the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it actually represents a set of general principles. Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (nor to the same degree), and they are not always in the same order. Numerous discoveries have not followed the textbook model of the scientific method, and, in some cases, chance has played a role.

Noteworthy, in a blogpost entitled Challenging Disappointment, I stated, “Science neither proves nor disproves ideas. Rather, it accepts or rejects data based on supporting or refuting evidence and revises conclusions based on additional evidence.” This is because science is never settled.

Relevant to this blogpost, I invite clients to consider that beliefs serve as propositions which are comprised of premises and are a form of hypotheses which may be tested. Unfavorably, foregone conclusions cannot be genuinely tested, because they’re viewed as absolutely certain outcomes.

My interpretation of Weinstein’s criticism regarding the pharmaceutical industry is that when hypotheses (i.e., mere beliefs) are treated as foregone conclusions (i.e., absolutely certain outcomes), then no method of scientific process is at play. Rather, that’s “scientific fraud.”

Likewise, when individuals regard their personal hypotheses as foregone conclusions, they will likely experience B-C self-disturbance. Therefore, I invite people to understand the scientific method as a means of testing the irrational propositions fallible human beings often use.

Now that you retain this knowledge, what will you do with it? Will you continue valuing your illogical and/or unreasonable assumptions in spite of evidence that challenges your propositions? Or will you instead acknowledge that you aren’t your beliefs, and then dispute your proposals?

When you’re ready to practice REBT, you empirically must rigorously dispute unhelpful hypotheses. Also, there’s no room for most foregone conclusions, unless we’re noting the certainty of your inescapable death at some point during your life. Until that time, dispute away!

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:

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

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

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

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

Federalist Society, The. (n.d.). Aaron Siri. Retrieved from https://fedsoc.org/bio/aaron-siri

Flowo. (n.d.). Curious surprised dark skinned young woman looks scrupulously through […] [Image]. Freepik. Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/premium-ai-image/curious-surprised-dark-skinned-young-woman-looks-scrupulously-through-round-spectacles-has-curly-b_176756840.htm#fromView=search&page=1&position=45&uuid=18fcc17d-cedf-4c84-b5d7-5671eebb18b6&query=curious

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, September 24). Animalistic instinct: Just because it seems right doesn’t mean it is. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/animalistic-instinct-just-because-it-seems-right-doesn-t-mean-it-is

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

Hollings, D. (2024, September 15). Challenging disappointment. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/challenging-disappointment

Hollings, D. (2024, October 29). Cognitive continuum. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/cognitive-continuum

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. (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. (2025, December 4). Empirical dispute. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/empirical-dispute

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

Hollings, D. (2025, December 13). Explanation and justification. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/explanation-and-justification

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

Hollings, D. (2024, May 11). Fallible human being. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fallible-human-being

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. (2025, March 5). Five major characteristics of four major irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/five-major-characteristics-of-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. (2025, September 22). Hey you! You’re losing your mind! Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/hey-you-you-re-losing-your-mind

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

Hollings, D. (2024, April 18). Homework. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/homework

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

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. (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. (2024, May 5). Psychotherapist. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapist

Hollings, D. (2025, September 20). Putting our impressions to the test. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/putting-our-impressions-to-the-test

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

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

Hollings, D. (2023, August 6). The science. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-science

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

Hollings, D. (2025, February 9). Value. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/value

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

Hollings, D. (2023, September 22). You’re gonna die someday. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/you-re-gonna-die-someday

Weinstein, B. (n.d.). Bret Weinstein [Official website]. Retrieved from https://www.bretweinstein.net/

Weinstein, B. [@DarkHorsePod]. (n.d.). DarkHorse Podcast. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/@DarkHorsePod

Weinstein, B. [@DarkHorsePod]. (2025, December 24). Hey Siri, why are American kids so sick? Aaron Siri on DarkHorse [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/8ZReO6cVLlA?si=xRzg3rAGUoA7CcV-

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

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

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Vladimir Lenin. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin