Expanding Our Sphere of Knowledge: Logical Fallacies, Ethics, and the Practice of Discernment

There is a moment in every clinician’s development when learning shifts from accumulation to discernment.

Early training often rewards memorization: models, diagnoses, interventions, ethical codes. Over time, however, something more subtle (and more demanding) emerges. We begin to notice not just what we know, but how we know it. What we privilege. What we dismiss. What we assume is neutral, objective, or simply “the way things are.”

In relational work, these assumptions matter.

I often think of this evolving awareness as a Sphere of Knowledge: a living, breathing system that expands, contracts, and reorganizes itself across a career. Like the nervous system, it is plastic. It grows through exposure, reflection, challenge, and repair. And like any system, it is vulnerable to shortcuts.

One of the most common shortcuts we take, often without realizing it, is logical fallacy.

When Thinking Becomes Unexamined

Logical fallacies are not signs of incompetence or ill intent. They are human. They arise when complexity feels overwhelming, when certainty offers relief, or when power and fear quietly shape our reasoning. They are mental shortcuts that help us respond quickly, but not always appropriately.

In therapy, however, unexamined reasoning carries weight. It can influence who we see as “appropriate” for care, how we conceptualize suffering, what research we dismiss, and which ethical standards we unconsciously soften when they feel inconvenient.

Over the years, I’ve noticed how certain fallacies recur in clinical conversations, supervision spaces, and professional discourse, often framed as common sense, efficiency, or clinical wisdom.

What follows is not an indictment, but an invitation: to slow down and notice where our thinking narrows as clinicians. I refer to this as our clinical capacity for discernment.

Patterns That Shape Practice

Some fallacies show up linguistically—through vagueness that sounds supportive but obscures accountability. Others emerge through omission, where incomplete knowledge is used to justify dismissal. Still others arise through intrusion, when personal bias, reputation, or historical context replaces engagement with the actual substance of an idea.

Across these patterns, a theme emerges: when complexity is dismissed, systems thinking collapses. For example:

• When we conflate a client’s diagnosis with their nature, we risk collapsing context into character.
• When we assume a model is invalid because of its originator, we confuse lineage with legitimacy.
• When we rely on our own past hardship to define what is fair for others, we mistake endurance for justice.

Each of these moments subtly reshapes the therapeutic field. Each one impacts consent, autonomy, access, and trust.

Ethics as a Living Practice

The AAMFT Code of Ethics is often treated as a static document—something to consult when things go wrong. But in reality, ethics live in daily micro-decisions: how we speak publicly, assess risk, evaluate research, and how willing we are to revise our certainty.

Ethical practice is not about knowing everything. It is about remaining teachable.

It asks us to hold humility alongside expertise. To recognize that knowledge evolves, especially as science unfolds. The relational nature of our work as clinicians demands not just competence, but ongoing self-reflection.

In this way, ethics are not constraints on our freedom as clinicians, but they are scaffolding for trust.

Cultivating Discernment

What strengthens a Sphere of Knowledge is not perfection, but critical curiosity.

This includes:

• Questioning reductionist explanations in favor of multiplicity
• Tracking how power, systems, and history shape both research and practice
• Noticing where our nervous systems seek certainty over nuance
• Remaining open to being wrong and intentionally, sincerely repairing when we are

Discernment is a relational skill. It requires dialogue, reflection, and a willingness to be unsettled.

And perhaps most importantly, it requires remembering that clients are always watching how we reason, not just what we recommend.

Expanding our Sphere of Knowledge is not a task we complete or domain where we achieve finite mastery. It is a posture we return to reflexively and consistently. It's our secure base.

Each time we pause before assuming and seek context instead of conclusion, we choose integrity over convenience.

This is how capacity is cultivated. Not through certainty—but through genuine reflexive care.