 |
USA Edition | Today Is Saturday, May 25, 2013 |
|---|
Socratic Warning
Newsroom Magazine
May Challenge
Or Demand
Critical Thinking
|
|---|
|
|
The intellectual roots of critical thinking date back to the Greek philosophers.
Socrates discovered, by means of probing questions, that in the exchange of competing ideas, people sometimes make confident claims based on unreliable assumptions or failed logic.
Such arguments, he discovered, were either erroneous in fact, absent sufficient foundation, or failing in logic. Instead, most arguments were based on confused meanings, inadequate evidence, or contradictory beliefs.
Socrates' contributions to critical thinking were many -- for he established new ways to think about contentious issues in terms of the quality of assumptions, facts and logic.
Thus Socrates demonstrated that persons may have passion, or power or high position but yet be deeply confused and irrational.
Good journalism, like compelling debate, is based on a clear understanding of facts and the logical construction of one's argument. And that is what the Socratic Method and The Sophist Tradition is all about.
Evidentiary Approach
The Socratic Method is the preferred way to examine issues.In the Socratic mode of questioning, postulations, ideas or arguments are examined for their clarity and logical consistency by systematic analysis of facts, assumptions and logical methodology to support a conclusion.
Socratic analysis is accomplished by means of a series of probing questions that systematically examine the quality of an argument or conclusion.
Understanding the quality of information, argument or one's conclusions, is fundamental to critical thinking -- and the goal of critical editing.
Historical Foundation
Socrates’ practice was followed by the critical thinking of Plato (who recorded Socrates’ thought), Aristotle, and the Greek skeptics, all of whom emphasized that things are often very different from what they appear to be.Only the trained mind is prepared to see through the way things look to us on the surface (delusive appearances) to the way they really are beneath the surface (the deeper realities of life.)
From this ancient Greek tradition emerged the need, for anyone who aspired to understand the deeper realities, to think systematically, to trace implications broadly and deeply; for only thinking that is comprehensive, well-reasoned, and responsive to objections can take us beyond the surface.
Means Of Analysis
The common denominators of Critical Thinking requires, for example, the systematic monitoring of thought; that thinking, to be critical, must not be accepted at face value, but must be analyzed and assessed for its clarity, accuracy, relevance, depth, breadth, and logical validity. All reasoning occurs within points of view and frames of reference.All reasoning proceeds from some goals, objectives, and has an informational base. All data, when used in reasoning, must be interpreted. That interpretation involves concepts, that concepts entail assumptions, and that all basic inferences in thought have implications, and each of these dimensions of thinking need to be monitored where problems of thinking can occur.
Questioning Chain
The result of the collective contribution of the history of critical thought is that the basic questions of Socrates can now be much more powerfully and focally framed.In every domain of human thought, and within every use of reasoning within any domain, it is now possible to question:
• ends and objectives
• the status and wording of questions
• the sources of information and fact
• the method and quality of information collection
• the mode of judgment and reasoning used
• the concepts that make that reasoning possible
• the assumptions that underlie concepts in use
• the implications that follow from their use
• the point of view or frame of reference within which reasoning takes place
Jeffrey Slee
Logician
| European Central Bank Remains Focused On Smart Austerity | Browse All Content | SEC Chairman On Technology’s Role In Market Oversight And Regulation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Previous In Section | Browse FBI Section |
Next In Section |
Under the No-Fault Law, patients can assign their right to reimbursement from an insurance company to others, including medical clinics that provide treatment for their injuries.
Washington
Two Clinic Owners Plead Guilty For Their Roles In Massive No-Fault Insurance Fraud Scheme
Three Medical Professionals, Including One Licensed Doctor, Have Also Pled Guilty
February 15, 2013
Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that five defendants have pled guilty for their roles in a systematic scheme to defraud private insurance companies of more than $400 million under New York’s no-fault automobile insurance law. The case is the largest single no-fault automobile insurance fraud scheme ever charged. Earlier today, Andrey Anikeyev, an owner and controller of various acupuncture clinics, pled guilty before U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and health care fraud. Yesterday, Dmitry Slobodyansky, who owned and controlled chiropractic clinics, also pled guilty before Judge Oetken to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and health care fraud. Sergey Gabinsky, a medical doctor, pled guilty before Judge Oetken earlier this month, and Pavel Poznansky, an acupuncturist, and Constantine Voytenko, a chiropractor, pled guilty before Judge Oetken in December 2012. All five were arrested in February 2012 with 31 other defendants, some of whom were also charged with racketeering and money laundering. The 36 defendants include 10 doctors and three attorneys.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said, “These five defendants piled up fraud to the tune of $400 million in a scheme to exploit New York’s no-fault auto insurance laws. We remain committed to ensuring that all their alleged co-conspirators, including the corrupt medical and legal professionals charged with using their professional licenses and training to facilitate this brazen fraud, see justice.”
According to the indictment, superseding informations, and other publicly filed information in the case:
Under New York State law, every vehicle registered in New York State is required to have no-fault automobile insurance, which enables the driver and passengers of a registered and insured vehicle to obtain benefits of up to $50,000 per person for injuries sustained in an automobile accident, regardless of fault (the “No-Fault Law”). The No-Fault Law requires prompt payment for medical treatment, thereby obviating the need for claimants to file personal injury lawsuits in order to be reimbursed. Under the No-Fault Law, patients can assign their right to reimbursement from an insurance company to others, including medical clinics that provide treatment for their injuries. New York State law also requires that all medical clinics in thesState be incorporated, owned, operated, and/or controlled by a licensed medical practitioner in order to be eligible for reimbursement under the No-Fault Law. Insurance companies will not honor claims for medical treatments from a medical clinic that is not actually owned, operated, and controlled by a licensed medical practitioner.
In order to mislead New York authorities and private insurers, some of the defendants in this case who were the true owners of these medical clinics (“No-Fault Clinic Controllers”) paid licensed medical practitioners, including doctors, to use the practitioners’ licenses to incorporate the professional corporations through which the medical clinics billed the private insurers for the bogus medical treatments. Gabinsky was one such doctor who admitted in open court to prescribing unnecessary medical treatments and to allowing co-conspirators to use his medical license to unlawfully open medical clinics in order to defraud insurance companies. Poznansky and Voytenko were medical practitioners who billed insurance companies for treatments to patients that were unnecessary.
The No-Fault Clinic Controllers also instructed the clinic doctors to prescribe excessive and unwarranted referrals for various “modality treatments” for nearly every patient they saw. The treatments included physical therapy, acupuncture, and chiropractic treatments—as much as five times per week for each—and treatments for psychology, neurology, orthopedics, and audiology. Clinic doctors also prescribed unnecessary MRIs, X-rays, orthopedics, and medical supplies. The No-Fault Clinic Controllers received thousands of dollars in kickbacks for patient referrals from the owners of the modality clinics (“modality controllers”). Anikeyev and Slobodyansky were two such Modality Controllers who admitted to billing insurance companies for treatments that patients did not need.
***
Anikeyev, 38, of Fort Lee, New Jersey; Slobodyansky, 42, of Brooklyn, New York; Gabinsky, 55, of Brooklyn, New York; Poznansky, 53, of Brooklyn, New York; and Voytenko, 41, of Brooklyn, New York, each face a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment, a maximum fine of $250,000, a maximum term of supervised release of three years, and a mandatory special assessment of $100. Poznansky, Voytenko, Gabinsky, Anikeyev, and Slobodyansky are scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Oetken on April 23, 2013; April 24, 2013; June 12, 2013; June 28, 2013; and June 13, 2013, respectively.
U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara thanked the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the New York City Police Department for their continued outstanding work in this investigation.
The case is being prosecuted by the Office’s Organized Crime Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Daniel S. Goldman, Nicholas L. McQuaid, Carolina A. Fornos, and Daniel Noble are in charge of the prosecution. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jason L. Cowley and Martin Bell of the Office’s Asset Forfeiture Unit are responsible for the forfeiture of assets.