It has been pointed out by many philosophers that Socratic Method is not the manner in which most people conduct their lives in arriving at beliefs.
Rather than the traditionally-accepted engagement of searching for evidence and analyzing such evidence, then arriving at a conclusion based upon the strength of that evidence, the very opposite occurs: We first form our own conclusions, then accept any and all evidence which tends to support that belief, simultaneously excluding and ignoring any semblance of evidence which may contradict our firmly-held beliefs.
“Proof to conclusion” is the supposed paradigm; in reality, “conclusion without proof” is the working norm.
And, perhaps, part of the problem as to why we operate in this manner is because we are a nation of lawyers, and why the adversarial system is also “supposed” to operate in a dialectical manner where contending “proofs” are meant to clash and contradict, until the “truth” somehow dominates the adversarial contentiousness and makes its appearance in a persuasive manner; yet, somehow, it doesn’t seem to work in the way it is supposed to.
In reality, what law school teaches is the following: “Here is the conclusion we want to reach; now, go and find the legal precedents which justify the conclusion which we have already reached.”
For Federal Government employees and U.S. Postal Service workers who are contemplating preparing an effective Federal/Postal Disability Retirement application under FERS, this manner of counter-rational — or, reverse-thinking — can be a detriment in putting together a sufficient Federal or Postal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
On the one hand, “Conclusion-then-proof” is somewhat of a “given”, inasmuch as the “conclusion” has already been reached: That you have an impeding medical condition requiring the submission of a Federal Disability Retirement application, and the “proof” must thereafter be obtained. On the other hand, the legal criteria required by Federal Disability Retirement Law looks for the Socratic Method — of providing proof, then allowing the governing body (OPM for Stages 1 & 2; the MSPB for Stage 3 of the Federal Disability Retirement process) to reach its own conclusion.
Thus, both the “traditional” method (otherwise known as the Socratic Method) as well as the counter-normative method are involved.
In either case, it is important to have the guidance of a Federal Disability Attorney who specializes in OPM Disability Retirement Law, where both the Socratic Method and the Counter-Normative Method can be employed, where — in the end — the “proof to conclusion” can stand a chance to get an approval for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS.
Robert R. McGill,
Lawyer exclusively representing Federal and Postal employees to secure their Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.