Reading a denial of a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS from the Office of Personnel Management is often a fascinating exercise in attempting to imply […]
For even the general population, it used to be that “logical consistency” mattered. To be “inconsistent” showed a semblance of unreliability, and even of suspicion of truthfulness. […]
Is it even important, anymore? Lawyers, of course, are notorious for making alternate arguments, presenting to a Judge or a Jury different explanations, […]
What makes for a “good” argument? Is it when voices are raised, or can a quietude of mere whispers that nevertheless persuades become the greater efficacy for effectiveness? Does it matter “who” the person arguing is, as opposed the position taken, the logical connections made and the avoidance of fallacies left unstated? Take the following hypothetical: A debate challenge is set between a champion debater, known throughout the country […]
In a perfect universe, logic should prevail and the superior argument would be identified, recognized and accepted. In a less-than-perfect universe (the state in which we unfortunately find ourselves), pragmatic factors involving power, authority, competency and non-substantive, peripheral issues must always be considered, and incorporated accordingly. In the “unofficial rules” of argumentative methodology, three elements must be present: (A) The ability and capacity to recognize a superior argument, (B) the willingness to concede one’s own inferiority of the proffer, […]
Often, in legal argumentation, one must simply use the available evidence garnered, and make the best of it. In many areas of law, especially in administrative legal venues involving Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers, the law favors agencies which hide behind the shield of “efficiency of the Federal Service”, in implementing sanctions, adverse actions, restrictions of leave usage, proposing and deciding upon removals (whether based upon reasons of medical conditions or other basis), etc. […]
In philosophy, Ontology is a branch of metaphysics concerned with the reality of our world, of unraveling Being in its true form and nature, and the interaction of subject-to-object relationships and the order of priorities as described in the inter and intra connections between the “I” and “you” of this world. As such, it must take into account the peculiar biological make-up of human beings, their perceptual world from a subjective viewpoint, as well as the Kantian paradigm of the “noumenal” world which is “out there”. […]
The Art of Argumentation is a dying form. Watching any “debate” forum on television or the radio; viewing the Presidential debates; it has become, instead, a time of pontification, […]
It had to happen. In a post-factual world, when facts have been abandoned and rational discourse and logical argumentation no longer matter — substance must be replaced […]
Legal arguments are merely a subset of ordinary ones; as variations of the facetious quip goes, if the facts are not on the lawyer’s side, then he will argue the law; if the law is not, he will argue the facts; if neither, then he will attempt to confound and obfuscate both. By sequence of logical argumentation, it is self-evident that “facts” must be the first order of presentation; then, persuasive discussions concerning those facts, forming and molding a given perspective (for there is surely a distinction to be made between that which “is” and that which “is seen” by a particular individual, bringing in the subjective component of interpretation and conveyance of information); […]
OPM Disability Retirement, Et Cetera… 