With the coach’s prodding and assistance, the client attends to that which moves them forward. This might mean considering potential changes in circumstances (both positive and negative). Contingency planning is important, so that one’s client retains control (free-will) in addressing changing conditions in the world where they are operating (determinism). Challenging questions are offered by the coach regarding what steps to take immediately and in the near future. These are “how” questions: “how will this work if everything is favorable for you?” “How will it work if you encounter major obstacles?”

Most importantly, the disheartening assumption that we are rarely or never captains of our own ship is met by determining how best to take command of the ship and retain this command. If our client is to be truly skillful when operating in our challenging 21st Century world, then they must generate several alternative plans regarding how they intend to operate in this world. This agility of action is especially important to engage when our clients are anxious. This anxiety is best metabolized by taking action. (Bergquist, 2020). Our coaching clients no longer remain frozen in place, but instead fight fiercely, yet strategically, with the “lions” they are facing.

Position Four: Semantics (Neither Free-Will or Determinism)

In considering the logical empirical point of view we must recognize that the argument regarding free-will and determinism is basically philosophical and not psychological in nature. However, the logical empiricist feels that his critique of various “scientific” terminology and assumptions is directly applicable to the sciences involved. As a matter of fact, his main concern is not with the traditional forms of philosophy, i.e. “speculative” philosophy, which he considers “meaningless”, but with the critical analysis of all so-called “scientific” or “empirical” statements.

Furthermore, the weight of logical empirical analysis has been felt throughout the psychological world. Before stating the logical empirical position on the free-will/determinism problem we shall offer some background material which will give this viewpoint some perspective. As we have implied, the logical empiricist differentiates between two types of philosophy, “speculative” and “analytic” or “critical”. The former gives one a total synthetic viewpoint of the world, the latter analyzes the key concepts which appear in any science – it follows alongside of and behind science, attempting to clarify and unify the terms and concepts of various scientific disciplines, thereby retaining the goals of its predecessor, logical Positivism. “Speculative” philosophy is scientifically “meaningless” for it is composed of statements which are non-verifiable, nonpredictive and frequently noncommunicable. Consequently, in our present complex and basically scientific world, critical philosophy dominates.

The nature of beliefs and truth

The basis of such a form of philosophy may be found in its definition of “knowledge”: the possession of beliefs which are correct, and which can be justified by reference to a method. A belief is correct if it corresponds with what is in fact in the outside world. Truth, per se, is an absolute and is incapable of change. It is contained in propositions rather than empirical evidence. Humankind can only approach truth, but can never be certain of it, for, in order for a statement to be scientifically acceptable, it must be open to both proof and disproof. Hence all so-called “truths” are only approximations of the actual truth and are always subject to modification or disproof. A belief is “justified” and considered to be “correct” only if the method employed offers evidence which can be verified, and which could be proven false with later evidence.