Drive Yourself Sane with John Bolton

[Otther]

I think "known unknown" isn't doublethink because it does represent a legitimate concept, awareness of particular non-available information. It's superficially doublethink, but true doublethink can't be rationally explained without contradiction. You can be aware of information without actually having it. The phrasing is certainly poor, but based on the meaning, it isn't doublethink.

 

[RandFan]

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.

Hey Upchurch, I'm often emotional and passionate. I try and not be but that is my nature. My only saving grace is that when I come down from my passion I am willing to apologize. I'm also willing to admit that I don't always think best when I'm emotional and often fail to grasp the points being made by others. I have an ego. I recognize that and I think that counts for something. I can be gotten through to.

Anyway, I really appreciate your comments.

Thanks

 

[RandFan]

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

Correct, but only because I'm humoring you.

I get that. The problem is that Rumsfeld statement is logical and yours is not.

Neither math NOR logic can be applied to language, and that's especially true of the English language.

Really? I'll get back to your post but I think that it is important to focus on this statement. Your statment is demonstrably wrong.

Language is by definition logic. A computer program is called a "language" for a reason. I can write a functioning computer program using the english language. I can and do make logical statement using the english language.

John is a boy.
The boat is large.
The sky is blue.
Mary is sad.

If Mark falls in the water he will get wet.
If Bob gets a 5% raise he will have enough to meet his financial obligations.
If I have two apples and you take one of those apples then I will only have one apple.

Now, do humans always use language in a logical fashion? No. Is the english language always precise? No.

Oh crap, I didn't notice the time. I have to run but I will get back to this later today or tomorrow.

 

[Upchurch]

I think "known unknown" isn't doublethink because it does represent a legitimate concept, awareness of particular non-available information. It's superficially doublethink, but true doublethink can't be rationally explained without contradiction. You can be aware of information without actually having it. The phrasing is certainly poor, but based on the meaning, it isn't doublethink.

I don't think the legitimacy of the meaning of a term plays much of a role in its being doublethink or not. Once again refering to Orwell, "WAR is PEACE" (or do I have that backwards?), is definitely a legitimate concept. Sometimes you, no kidding, have to fight a war in order to obtain peace.

Having a legitimate concept in no way disqualifies a term for doublethink-hood.

 

[RandFan]

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

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."

Oh this is killing me, there is so much to respond to. I can't let this one go before I leave. There is a real and practical difference between known-unknowns and unknown-unknowns. If you would answer the question I asked I could get you to an understanding but it is clear your ego won't let you gain that understanding.

Hey, do us both a favor. Look up propositional and prepositional logic and also see Logic & Fallacies. You could save me some time by learning on your own. If not though then I will walk you through this. Sorry for being patronizing.

 

[kimiko]

known known = known
unknown known = doublespeak for variable
unknown unknown = unknown

An unknown unknown is not a variable unless there is something there to vary, at which point knowing there is something there that varies makes it a variable.

 

[Mephisto]

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

I get that. The problem is that Rumsfeld statement is logical and yours is not.

Really? I'll get back to your post but I think that it is important to focus on this statement. Your statment is demonstrably wrong.

Language is by definition logic. A computer program is called a "language" for a reason. I can write a functioning computer program using the english language. I can and do make logical statement using the english language.

John is a boy.
The boat is large.
The sky is blue.
Mary is sad.

If Mark falls in the water he will get wet.
If Bob gets a 5% raise he will have enough to meet his financial obligations.
If I have two apples and you take one of those apples then I will only have one apple.

Now, do humans always use language in a logical fashion? No. Is the english language always precise? No.

Oh crap, I didn't notice the time. I have to run but I will get back to this later today or tomorrow.

We'll continue when you return - a whole weekend shouldn't be wasted in front of the computer.

But, your language examples are as rudimentary as my computer programming. Certainly those are correct examples, but the variances and odd nuiances of the English language are the result of the rules and terminology being based on Latin - a language with which it has very little in common.
____

"Making English grammar conform to Latin rules is like asking people to play baseball using the rules of football."
The Mother Tongue - English & How It Got that Way by Bill Bryson, William Morrow & Co., copyright 1990
________

I think that since you're advocating the "correctness" of these statements using science or technology (computer programming) you're inadvertantly injecting "tech-speak" into common usage.

Again, if your wife calls you at work to ask if you'll be home for dinner, do you respond, "That's a known-unknown?" No, you simply tell her that . . . yes, you'll be home, but no, you might not be home in time for dinner.

If you ask your doctor, while discussing your family history of heart disease, if you'll die of a heart attack, he doesn't say, "that's a known unknown (signifying that he knows you'll die, but not if you'll die of a heart attack)," he simply speculates that it's a possibility.

I'm often very suspicious of apparently intelligent people who use vague language. I'm wondering WHY they can't just come out and SAY what they mean? If you don't know something, you just don't know it! You can suspect it, you can speculate on its existence, but you can't corral it into an ambigious corner that makes it seem that you have the answer.

To bring this back around, is God a known unknown, an unknown known, a speculation, or just simply unknown? It doesn't seem to me that a person using language to split hairs can make a case for being an Atheist, since God may in fact (according to some) simply be an unknown unknown, . . . or whatever.

 

[Dorian Gray]

No more than Jumbo shrip is doublethink, one quantifies the other. Shrimp come in different sizes. Jumbo shrimp conveys information that you and I understand. It might be oxymoronic but it is not doublethink.

Jumbo Shrimp isn't an oxymoron. Shrimp meant the shellfish long before it meant 'small'. Jumbo Shrimp simply means a large variety of that kind of shellfish. Do you need this explained?

Is anyone else out there getting this?

RandFan, you are one slick-talking wool-pulling mother. Who cares? Why didn't Rumsfeld simply say "there are things we know, and things we suspect, and things we don't know, and we have to be prepared." Simple, instead of all this crap that makes him sound like he's lying and prompts kneejerk reactions for dozens of posts from you.

Now, do humans always use language in a logical fashion? No. Is the english language always precise? No.

Are you providing several examples of both? Yes.

 

[Orwell]

Hey Randfan, I think you should read this.

 

[President Bush]

A few times this sock puppet has been really funny, but as often as not misses the mark.

Due to the odd tone of this I am beginning to suspect that I might - at the moment - be home sleeping; though in need of a sip of water, perhaps, or a bowel movement.

 

[Otther]

I don't think the legitimacy of the meaning of a term plays much of a role in its being doublethink or not. Once again refering to Orwell, "WAR is PEACE" (or do I have that backwards?), is definitely a legitimate concept. Sometimes you, no kidding, have to fight a war in order to obtain peace.

Could you explain the meaning of "war is peace" without contradiction?

 

[crackmonkey]

Could someone let the person who posts as 'President Bush' here know that his attempts at humor are... pretty lame, frankly? If they were amusing, it would be enjoyable. As it is, they're pretty embarrassing.

 

[President Bush]

How unknown is a known unknown if unknown knowns know known knowns?

In maintaining a scientific attitude I try to acknowlege a process world of continual change, along with the functioning of my nervous system in its experience of that world.

And so, in that all of our knowlege represents the incomplete abstracting of our fallible nervous systems, in some ways all levels of abstraction can be considered as inferences.

Concerning "known unknowns", "unknown unknowns", and even "unknown knowns" I would, now, suggest viewing these processes on a continuum and not as sharp categories.

On this fact-inference continuum I would certainly place the category "unknown unknowns" as far as possible to the 'Wild Guess' end of the spectrum. "Known unknowns" by definition seem insufficiently observable to rate falling anywhere close to 'Certainty'. Somewhat closer to this end and "known knowns" I might place the sadly neglected "unknown knowns". By definition 'known', just not yet by you. The question of Iraqi WMD and whether they, in fact, existed prior to the US invasion might be more clearly understood using this particular fact-inference.

Through recognizing the limits of our inferential statements we might allow ourselves to then ask: "What do we know?" and "How can we find out more?" These questions can help lead us to descriptive statements, which we might then evaluate more objectively.

 

[RandFan]

Hey Randfan, I think you should read this.

Thanks Orwell. I actually took some time and read a lot of the article. I agree with what I read.

 

[RandFan]

Jumbo Shrimp isn't an oxymoron. Shrimp meant the shellfish long before it meant 'small'. Jumbo Shrimp simply means a large variety of that kind of shellfish. Do you need this explained?

Actually it is an oxymoron since shrimp has come to mean small. The word "jumbo" was invented by P.T. Barnum to mean extra large. Words have meaning regardles of there origin. Do you need this explained to you?

Is anyone else out there getting this?

Are you?

RandFan, you are one slick-talking wool-pulling mother. Who cares?

Aparently you do?

Why didn't Rumsfeld simply say "there are things we know, and things we suspect, and things we don't know, and we have to be prepared." Simple, instead of all this crap that makes him sound like he's lying and prompts kneejerk reactions for dozens of posts from you.

I agree that it appears bad. Just as Kerry's "sensative war" sounded bad. BTW, I lambasted Kerry for making that statement. I'm only pointing out that it was logically valid. Why didn't kerry say something esle? Why did Clinton say "what the meaning of is, is"? Hey, I don't know why politicans say things that sound stupid. This certainly sounded stupid.

It IS logically valid. And for the record, It made perfect sense to me. And what about YOUR kneejerk reaction? Why can't I defend a logically valid statement?

Are you providing several examples of both? Yes.

What? Why are you so passionate about this affair? Did you attack Kerry when he said "sensative war"? Cool if you did then you are being consitent. I'm have admitted that Rumsfeld words were clumsy. BTW, why the personal atack?

 

[RandFan]

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

We'll continue when you return - a whole weekend shouldn't be wasted in front of the computer.

But, your language examples are as rudimentary as my computer programming. Certainly those are correct examples, but the variances and odd nuiances of the English language are the result of the rules and terminology being based on Latin - a language with which it has very little in common.

You said logic can't be applied to language. That is silly. Without logic language wouldn't work.

"I like the taste of blue." That is not logically valid. We cannot communicate if we forsake logic. Now, if you mean that the English language is often imprecise then I agree with you. Is that what you mean?

"Making English grammar conform to Latin rules is like asking people to play baseball using the rules of football."
The Mother Tongue - English & How It Got that Way by Bill Bryson, William Morrow & Co., copyright 1990.

But that is entirely besides the point. No one is trying to make English grammar conform to Latin rules. This is just a canard. The English Language IS logical and the syntax follows rules of logic. It is not always precise but it IS logical.

I think that since you're advocating the "correctness" of these statements using science or technology (computer programming) you're inadvertently injecting "tech-speak" into common usage.

No, not at all.

My Wife: When will you be home.

Me: At Six.

My Wife: Are you sure?

My Wife: Unless the traffic is bad.

Logically valid.

Again, if your wife calls you at work to ask if you'll be home for dinner, do you respond, "That's a known-unknown?" No, you simply tell her that . . . yes, you'll be home, but no, you might not be home in time for dinner.

Non sequitur. There are times when I have used such language.

Rule: Formality is not requisite for logically correct statements.

Let's look at your statement again, "Yes, but I might not be home in time for dinner". That is logically valid. There is no reason to distinguish known-unknowns. It is not called for. However sometimes it is.

Now, let's try another perfectly valid and logical statement.

Question: What will be the weather April 8th 2020 in Yorkshire England?

Answer: I don't know.

Question: Why?

Answer: There are a number of variables that we cannot predict.

Question: Like what?

Answer: Temperature, wind speed, barometric pressure, and humidity.

Question: So these are things we know that we don't know, correct?

Answer: Yes, that is correct.

Question: Are there any other variables?

Answer: Yes, there are many variables that we don't even know might exist that could affect the whether. (see Chaos theory, or more specifically Butterfly effect)

Question: So these are unknown unknowns?

Answer: That is correct.

If you ask your doctor, while discussing your family history of heart disease, if you'll die of a heart attack, he doesn't say, "that's a known unknown (signifying that he knows you'll die, but not if you'll die of a heart attack)," he simply speculates that it's a possibility.

Actually no, my doctor would absolutely tell me that there are factors that we know of and factors that we don't know of and perhaps he would tell me that there are likely factors that we haven't even considered.

I'm often very suspicious of apparently intelligent people who use vague language.

It is not vague. It is perhaps esoteric for many but it is decidedly not vague.

I'm wondering WHY they can't just come out and SAY what they mean?

But this really is the most economic and correct way to say exactly what he meant. Sadly we have to bullsh!t or dumb down language because people don't get something like the difference between known-unknowns and unknown-unknowns.

If you don't know something, you just don't know it! You can suspect it, you can speculate on its existence, but you can't corral it into an ambigious corner that makes it seem that you have the answer.

No, there are things like wind speed and temperature that we know that we don't know. And there are things like the flapping of butter fly wings that we don't know that we don't know.

Again, that you find something difficult to comprehend does not make it invalid.

To bring this back around, is God a known unknown, an unknown known, a speculation, or just simply unknown? It doesn't seem to me that a person using language to split hairs can make a case for being an Atheist, since God may in fact (according to some) simply be an unknown unknown, . . . or whatever.

Non sequitur as it applies to this discussion. Sure god could be an unknown unknown but so could IPUs. Not relevant. However in complex systems there are valid reasons why we differentiate known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

I have given you example after example and you have yet to rebut a single one as valid. I have given real world examples. Each and everyone of them stand as valid.

It is not a debatable point. You can argue whether the language was clumsy and seemingly esoteric to the average person and perhaps should have been dumbed down but no one, not one person has shown the statement to be logically invalid. Simply because It is not invalid.

And to add salt to the wounds, it does depend on what the meaning of "is" is? Hyper-technical and weasaly but valid.

I still haven't read the question and statement. I have conceded that Rumsfelds statement could have been weasely but I need to know the context.

 

[Mycroft]

Actually it is an oxymoron since shrimp has come to mean small. The word "jumbo" was invented by P.T. Barnum to mean extra large. Words have meaning regardles of there origin. Do you need this explained to you?

And not every horse is going to drink the water. Not that you can't try, just try not to go nuts if you find one that won't.

 

[RandFan]

known known = known
unknown known = doublespeak for variable
unknown unknown = unknown

Just a point of clarification, do you mean known unkown?

An unknown unknown is not a variable unless there is something there to vary, at which point knowing there is something there that varies makes it a variable.

Actually no, there are variables that we don't know the value of but that we do know are relevant to the model. There are also variables that we don't even know exist untill, sometime during or after the event and at that time we might "know" them. Sometimes we don't even know them then.

The temprature, windspeed, barometric pressure and relative humidty for any given date in the future are known unkowns. They are variables that we know will affect the weather. There are also other things that we know will likely affect the whether but we don't know what they are. These are unknown unknowns.

It's quite simple. I deal with these things on a regular basis. And no, it is not doublespeak. We don't know if a sea gulls wings will alter weather patterns. That is an unkown unkown and it is in part why we can't predict complex systems beyond a given time period. The other part is that if we could know what all the possible variables are we don't know which ones will affect the model or what the threshold of the effect will be.

 

[RandFan]

And not every horse is going to drink the water. Not that you can't try, just try not to go nuts if you find one that won't.

Thanks Mycroft, it has been stimulating. But you are right.

 

[Skeptic]

I was pointing out that "known unknown" is, by definition, doublethink because it implies the opposite of what it really means.

Not really. A "known unknown" is an unknown quantity you have SOME INFORMATION about, such as its possible values. Example: next week's lottery numbers are a known unknown: you don't know what they are, but you DO know quite a bit about them, i.e., that there will be six of them, that they will all be integers within a certain range, etc.

Thus, a "known unknown" = an unknown you nevertheless know quite a bit about. Hardly Orwellian; simply a factual description.