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 employees and U.S. Postal workers who are contemplating preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS, this manner of counter-rational — or,...
The Department of Home Affairs has rejected false claims circulating online that a Constitutional Court judgment means asylum seekers will be allowed to vote in South Africa. The department says t...