Posted on June 02, 2012 in Administrative Law
In a perfect universe, the conceptual distinction between facts, proof & truth would be non-existent: facts would in and of themselves prove X, and the truth of the factual proof would be self-evident. But this is neither a perfect world, nor one in which recognition or acknowledgement of true, proven facts are conceded easily. Other human factors intercede: self-motivation; possible unspoken quota system (did he really say that?); misapplication of a standard or legal criteria; lack of knowledge; lack of training to be able to recognize the distinction, difference, and intersecting significance of the three, etc. As such, because we occupy an imperfect world, it is important to understand the conceptual distinction between the three. In preparing, formulating, and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, many Federal and Postal employees approach the administrative process of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits as if merely stating the "facts", however compelling and substantively emotive, will "prove" the "truth" of the applicant’s statement of disability. But "facts" are merely the substratum (to borrow Aristotelian language) of the methodological process of effective argumentation; they must be proven to the Office of Personnel Management, and such proof must be persuasive to a level where the reviewing individual at OPM is persuaded of the truth of such proof. The key to persuasiveness, of course, is argumentation; and argumentation must involve validity based upon an objective methodology, a logical and sequential statement of relevant facts, and (in the case of an administrative process such as Federal Disability Retirement) reference to statutes, regulations and case-law which provide the foundational reference-point for establishing eligibility. Human beings are by definition imperfect constructs. Slightly above the apes (although that is debatable), and certainly lower than the angels (that is not in dispute), one must therefore recognize that facts must be proven, and the truth of such proven facts must be asserted.
Sincerely, Robert R. McGill, Esquire
In a perfect universe, the conceptual distinction between facts, proof & truth would be non-existent: facts would in and of themselves prove X, and the truth of the factual proof would be self-evident. But this is neither a perfect world,