Drive Yourself Sane with John Bolton

[RandFan]

I have to deal in known knowns and known unkowns all of the time and they give me fits. It is the unkown unkowns that I worry about. I'm pretty good at planning for the known knowns.

Sorry Uphcurch, that should read "unkown unknowns" and "known unkowns".

 

[Upchurch]

Not really, the way Sec. Rumsfeld constructs it (and he uses this formulation often). Think of it this way: A known known is question to which you have a correct answer. A known unknown is a question to which you do not have an answer. And an unknown unknown is where you don't even know enough to ask the question.

By asking the question, "What don't we know?" are not all unknown unknowns become known unknowns? The only time you could truely have an unknown unknown is if you were under the impression that you know everything.

Regardless, your explination (which is identical to RandFan's) does not explain how Rumsfeld is not using two contradictory forms of the same concept simultaneously but rather focuses on explaining what he actually means.

Using the example of doublethink in 1984, you're telling me that Big Brother means "war" when he says "peace". Likewise, you're me that Rumsfeld has a "question of an unknown" when he says he has "knowledge of an unknown".

In other words, "question" is "knowledge" and "not knowing something" is "knowing something". This is doublethink.


RF, totally understand. Please excuse my inevitable jumbling of "known" and "unknown" and we'll be even. (also my "n" key is misbehavig. Stupid old laptop.)

 

[RandFan]

Using the example of doublethink in 1984, you're telling me that Big Brother means "war" when he says "peace". Likewise, you're me that Rumsfeld has a "question of an unknown" when he says he has "knowledge of an unknown".

I honestly don't think that this is the case. Let me give you two real world examples that have honestly happened to me. I'll strip out all of the detail to simplify.

Program failure incident #1
Client: The program failed, did you know that the program was going to be used that way?

Me: No, it was an unknown variable to me.

Client: Did you know that the program could have been used that way?

Me: No, it was an unknown variable to me.


Program failure incident #2.
Client: The program failed, did you know that the program was going to be used that way?

Me: No, I did not know.

Client: Did you know that the program could have been used that way?

Me: Yes, but I thought it extremely unlikely.

Client: Please prepare for all known possibilities even if you think they are unlikely and you don't know if those possibilities will ever be used.

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns. No double think but real and practical usages of the concepts of known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

 

[Upchurch]

Yes I am, shrimp are really small compared to wales. So they are really big small things.

This is the relativeness of the word "big", and not tied to any inherent smallness of Penaeus plebejus (btw, Ed bless Google for providing the scientific name for "shrimp".). Jumbo Penaeus plebejus are really big compared to regular Penaeus plebejus. The operative relativity is in "big", not "shrimp".

Answer my questions about my match tomorrow with my opponent.

Look, I'm not saying that the underlying concept is not a worthy one. Just like in 1984, LOVE and PEACE both had valid concepts in there actual meanings (HATE and WAR, respectively). It is the process of casting a concept as its opposite that is at the heart of doublethink.

I'm not saying that figuring out the questions is not an important endevor and a valid thing for the government to do. However, casting the concept of an "unanswered question" as "knowledge" fits the definition of doublethink.

I understand what he meant by "known unknown". I understand why it is important to identify unknown knowns*. Please believe me, there is no reason to explain what an unknown known* is again in yet another way.

If you want to challenge that known unknown is not doublethink, you need to address why a question is, itself, knowledge.


* GAAAH, you know what I mean.

 

[RandFan]

This is the relativeness of the word "big", and not tied to any inherent smallness of Penaeus plebejus (btw, Ed bless Google for providing the scientific name for "shrimp".). Jumbo Penaeus plebejus are really big compared to regular Penaeus plebejus. The operative relativity is in "big", not "shrimp".

But the word "shrimp" has meaning derived from its use of the creature. We could have named the shrimp "small". And shrimp are small, comparatively.

Somehow I don't think we are all that far away in our understanding each other.

Look, I'm not saying that the underlying concept is not a worthy one. Just like in 1984, LOVE and PEACE both had valid concepts in there actual meanings (HATE and WAR, respectively). It is the process of casting a concept as its opposite that is at the heart of doublethink.

But I don't think that is what Rumsfeld is doing. I could be wrong and will rethink it.

I'm not saying that figuring out the questions is not an important endevor and a valid thing for the government to do. However, casting the concept of an "unanswered question" as "knowledge" fits the definition of doublethink.

I understand what he meant by "known unknown". I understand why it is important to identify unknown knowns. Please believe me, there is no reason to explain what an unknown known is again in yet another way.

Thank you, the excercise was begining to grate on me. Sorry for beating a dead horse.

If you want to challenge that known unknown is not doublethink, you need to address why a question is, itself, knowledge.

I think I'm getting your point. I will look again at what Rumsfeld said.

Thanks

 

[Mycroft]

Sorry, I'm still thinking here.

It COULD be a or b or something else. A and B are known factors. I don't know if the opponent is going to use A or B or something else. So I plan for the known unkowns, A and B and hope there is no unknown unkowns.

Is anyone out there getting this?

I am. It's not that hard.

Any variable is an "unknown." The variables you know about are "known unknowns" the variables you haven't anticipated are "unknown unknowns."

Pretty simple, really.

 

[RandFan]

I am. It's not that hard.

Any variable is an "unknown." The variables you know about are "known unknowns" the variables you haven't anticipated are "unknown unknowns."

Pretty simple, really.

Thank you, and you are right. If you "know" what will happen then it isn't a variable.

 

[Mycroft]

To be honest, and I mean this in the most constructivly critical manner possible, it seems to me you are more reacting in defence of Rumsfeld than acting out of any genuine belief that "known known" and "known unknown" are good and proper uses of the English language.

I don't think this is fair to RandFan. He more than any of us, takes pains to be fair and to be open to criticisms of beliefs he holds. Agree with him on any one issue or not, he represents the best JREF has to offer on the principles of skepticism applied to politics.

 

[Mephisto]

Re: Re: If you say so . . .

Let me ask you some questions Mephisto. Let's pretend that you have studied the Los Angeles Lakers basketball highlight films. You learn all of the strategies that they have used to date. Now,

1. Do you know when and which of their many strategies they will use in a game. This is a known unknown. You simply don't know which or when the Lakers will use any of their many strategies so you plan for them all, correct?
   
2. What if they use a strategy that you have never seen before? THIS is a known unknown. You can't prepare for what you don't know.[/list=1] Now do you get it?
   
   Sorry, you got that wrong, it's "known unknown", and yes, it is perfectly logical and sound reasoning. No it's not JUST speculation because you can plan for known unknowns. You can't plan for unknown unknowns.

1. 
   
   This really isn't making any sense, RandFan. It may or may not have to do with the fact that I don't like organized team sports, but my English degree tells me you're drawing distinctions where they don't belong. An unknown is simply an unknown, whether you're talking about a tactic an opponent might use (just because you're familiar with his tactics doesn't mean he won't use something you have no knowledge of - which makes it ALL unknown). Having foreknowledge only allows you to suspect or speculate - it doesn't make anything a known-unknown.
   
   It is redundant to call something you SUSPECT as being a known unknown, but by endorsing this line of thinking you'd have to admit to the adverse of an unknown known - THAT is impossible.
   
   The English language is confusing enough with only three necessary distinctions; known, unknown and suspected. If, based on prior experience, data, or faulty intelligence, you think your opponent has WMD you SUSPECT him of being able to attack you, if you sold him those WMD, you KNOW he can attack you, if there are countries from which he could purchase WMD then you don't know what his capabilities are (unknown).

 

[Mycroft]

In this case, "shrimp" does not specifically mean "a small thing", but rather Penaeus plebejus. So, when you are saying "jumbo shrimp", you are not saying "a really big small thing", but "a really big Penaeus plebejus".

However, for "known unknown", you are using two contradictory forms of the same concept. To know that you don't know something does not give you any particular insight into that something, thus it remains an unknown.

To use an analogy, adding a negative one is identical to simply subtracting one. i.e.:

x + (-1) = x - 1

Likewise, a known unknown is simply unknown.

Well, there is a certain allowance for the vaguaries of language.

When we use the term "unknown" to describe a known variable, it's not entirely unknown, because we know the limits of what we're contemplating. Something truly unknown is simply a viod where we don't even have enough information to speculate on what we don't know.

I don't believe your argument demonstraes this as "doublespeak" as we understand it, but it does illustrate the need for an extra word or two in the English language to make it more clear.

 

[Mycroft]

Not really, the way Sec. Rumsfeld constructs it (and he uses this formulation often). Think of it this way: A known known is question to which you have a correct answer. A known unknown is a question to which you do not have an answer. And an unknown unknown is where you don't even know enough to ask the question.

Take Mercury's shifting perihelion. To people before Newton, it was an unknown unknown -- certainly to a geocentrist it was an unknown unknown. There came a time after Newton when it was apparent that Mercury's orbit shifted more than predicted by Newton's model but no one had no clue why -- a known unknown. Along comes Einstein. Match up general relativity's predictions with the orbit and BAM! we've got a known known.

Brilliant! Very well said!

 

[Mephisto]

I agree, Mycroft

I don't think this is fair to RandFan. He more than any of us, takes pains to be fair and to be open to criticisms of beliefs he holds. Agree with him on any one issue or not, he represents the best JREF has to offer on the principles of skepticism applied to politics.

I think that RandFan is probably the epitome of the skeptical thinker, and I agree that he has always held his composure long after mine would have boiled, but I also agree with Upchurch.

I don't feel that Upchurch was being overly critical of RandFan, whether or not RandFan is defending Rumsfeld. The distinctions do seem to make sense when you think about them, but they are not condusive to concise thought. I do think that this administration is taking advantage of the public's lack of awareness and low literacy levels with vague and inconcise statements. Either that, or they're making it up as they go along.


edited to add: Is it a known-known to me that some of you will take offense to this post, or is it a known-unknown because I know you'll answer, but I don't know what you'll say? If I ask you a question for which you have no postive answer, could you reply, "I don't know, know?" See what I mean? It's simply NOT correct English.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: If you say so . . .

This really isn't making any sense, RandFan. It may or may not have to do with the fact that I don't like organized team sports, but my English degree tells me you're drawing distinctions where they don't belong. An unknown is simply an unknown, whether you're talking about a tactic an opponent might use (just because you're familiar with his tactics doesn't mean he won't use something you have no knowledge of - which makes it ALL unknown). Having foreknowledge only allows you to suspect or speculate - it doesn't make anything a known-unknown.

It is redundant to call something you SUSPECT as being a known unknown, but by endorsing this line of thinking you'd have to admit to the adverse of an unknown known - THAT is impossible.

The English language is confusing enough with only three necessary distinctions; known, unknown and suspected. If, based on prior experience, data, or faulty intelligence, you think your opponent has WMD you SUSPECT him of being able to attack you, if you sold him those WMD, you KNOW he can attack you, if there are countries from which he could purchase WMD then you don't know what his capabilities are (unknown).

{sigh} Well, at least Upchurch understands. That is not an appeal to authority BTW. Upchurch and I could both be totally off our rocker.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. I have given example after example.

Here we go, school is back in session.

There are constants and there are variables. We use variables when we DON'T know something. In logic and math we can identify the usage of a variable when we see the "if" function.

If X then A. If we knew X we wouldn't use "if" now would we? Correct? Please answer.

I'll wait for the answer before I proceed.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be patronizing but this is beginning to get ridiculous. This really isn't a debatable point and I should note that you did not answer my questions or address my points made but simply launched into an incoherent and disjointed set of statements.

 

[RandFan]

Re: I agree, Mycroft

I think that RandFan is probably the epitome of the skeptical thinker, and I agree that he has always held his composure long after mine would have boiled, but I also agree with Upchurch.

Agree with him how? Upchurch agrees with me that there are valid concepts as known-unknowns and unknown-unknowns.

Now, was Rumsfelds intention to use double think? I need to look at the question and statement again in context. I haven't done that yet.

I don't feel that Upchurch was being overly critical of RandFan, whether or not RandFan is defending Rumsfeld. The distinctions do seem to make sense when you think about them, but they are not condusive to concise thought. I do think that this administration is taking advantage of the public's lack of awareness and low literacy levels with vague and inconcise statements. Either that, or they're making it up as they go along.

I don't think Upchurch was being overly critical of me. I don't have a problem being questioned. I realize that I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. I often have to admit I'm wrong. Sometimes after pages of stubbornly defending my position (see debate with Orwell where I accuse him of a fallacy but in the end realize I was wrong).

edited to add: Is it a known-known to me that some of you will take offense to this post, or is it a known-unknown because I know you'll answer, but I don't know what you'll say? If I ask you a question for which you have no postive answer, could you reply, "I don't know, know?" See what I mean? It's simply NOT correct English.

This last statement does not appear to be logical. The use of the word "or" appears to make a false dichotomy. the known-known (which is itself debatable) is not necessarily exclusive of the known-unknown.

Just because something is confusing to some or many does not mean that it is wrong.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: I agree, Mycroft

Originally posted by Mephisto
I don't feel that Upchurch was being overly critical of RandFan, whether or not RandFan is defending Rumsfeld. The distinctions do seem to make sense when you think about them, but they are not condusive to concise thought. I do think that this administration is taking advantage of the public's lack of awareness and low literacy levels with vague and inconcise statements. Either that, or they're making it up as they go along.

I think there are many valid criticisms of this administration, but I don't think this one statement is one of them. I think it's unfortunate that those who attack this administration choose this type of thing to attack when there are so many other issues that are so much more valid. It leaves me, a Democrat, with the uncomfortable feeling that there may be no one, politically, that represents a reasonable point of view.

Originally posted by Mephisto
edited to add: Is it a known-known to me that some of you will take offense to this post, or is it a known-unknown because I know you'll answer, but I don't know what you'll say? If I ask you a question for which you have no postive answer, could you reply, "I don't know, know?" See what I mean? It's simply NOT correct English.

I agree it's not easy to follow, and that perhaps maybe the English language needs a few more words to make it easier to follow, but that's not the same as doubls-speak.

 

[Mephisto]

Re: Re: Re: Re: If you say so . . .

Here we go, school is back in session.

There are constants and there are variables. We use variables when we DON'T know something. In logic and math we can identify the usage of a variable when we see the "if" function.

If X then A. If we knew X we wouldn't use "if" now would we? Correct? Please answer.

Correct, but only because I'm humoring you.

Neither math NOR logic can be applied to language, and that's especially true of the English language. All languages are constantly evolving and changing with regard to locale, slang and modern usage, they are not subject to formulas or logic. Upchurch was right in stating that you're using two opposing words to signify a minor distinction.

If it's a hot summer day, and you're out working in the garden working up a sweat. Your shirt is full of perspiration and is sticking to your stomach and back. Then, your wife/girlfriend comes out and squirts you with the hose, are you wet wet, dry wet, or wet dry? Your "wetness" doesn't come from the same source nor for the same reason. Does a distinction need to be drawn? No, you're simply wet.

Now, let's put MY class in session. How would you punctuate this sentence?
________

woman without her man is an animal
____________

The sentence can be punctuated in two obvious ways each of which has a completely different meaning. Now the problem of known-unknowns is somewhat similar (disregarding punctuation). The problem is; the distinctions are too vague to bother with. It is much simpler (and better English) to say, "I don't know," as opposed to, "that is a known-unknown."

Of course, this may have EVERYTHING to do with the fact that Rumsfeld and the rest of the administration simply cannot mouth the words, "I DON'T KNOW."

 

[Upchurch]

And to make life all the more difficult, i don't disagree with Rumsfeld's usage of "known unknown". Based on the context, it makes perfect sense. Hell, I'm sure I've used the term myself in the past.

The question of whether or not "known unknown" is an instance of doublethink is really more of an academic one. I believe that it does qualify because even if I know what kind of information is missing or the form it ought to take, I still ultimately don't have that information. Given this thread, I would say the proper term should be "unanswered question".

I also question the concept of if there are really any unknown unknowns in the sense that we are ever unaware that there are things that we don't know. As I said earlier, that would require thinking we know everything. ....I take that back. I have met people in my life who think they know everything.

FWIW, I don't consider RandFan particularly partican. I was simply surprised at what I perceived to be an emotional response (with the all caps "shouting" and all) and his insistance that Rumsfeld was right, despite that not being my point of contention. I see now that I simply hadn't adequately presented my argument. I appologize if I wasn't being fair to RandFan.

 

[Mycroft]

FWIW, I don't consider RandFan particularly partican. I was simply surprised at what I perceived to be an emotional response (with the all caps "shouting" and all) and his insistance that Rumsfeld was right, despite that not being my point of contention. I see now that I simply hadn't adequately presented my argument. I appologize if I wasn't being fair to RandFan.

I think RandFan has been trying to cajole certain partisan types into more skpetical thinking, and may have let a little frustration show. Not that I blame him, his patience is greater than mine.

 

[demon]

Mephisto:
"These are NOT the words by which a wise man lives, they are the words of a political weasel seeking to obscure his scent or his tracks in case his words come back to haunt him."

That`s exactly my point. It provides a nice facade for Rumsfeld to hide behind and he needs it too when he goes around telling porkies like:

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

How convenient to have this sort of convoluted claptrap to fall back on when your lies don`t pan out...and when we hear this sort of language from a politican we know it`s spin and we know it is typical of one who plays fast and loose with the truth.

I understand what he`saying here as well as anyone, unlike RandFan however, it seems I understand the intention behind the words too. It`s a "don`t blame me guv" excuse for when things go wrong.

 

[Manny]

FWIIW, "known unknown" and its accompaniments did not originate with Sec. Rumsfeld. I don't know where it started, but as was surmised on first page it has become a pretty standard B-school jargon term. Running a search also turns up usages in the sciences.

I kind of see your point, Upchurch, but I think you're looking too deeply into the words and seeing a contradiction. It may be that this debate can be resolved by referring to the term instead as a colloquialism.