Known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns
This was one of my all time favorite Western koans. I wanted to break it down in understanding what it really means. I think it doesn't take too much effort to see it's an epistemological statement. However, I don't know if the following works and am wondering about the input of interpretations of the statement. Here's my take:
1) Known knowns
2) Known unknowns
3) Unknown unknowns.
For us to begin examining known unknowns and unknown unknowns, we first have to acknowledge and understand 1 & 2, to get to 3, for there anything meaningful to be said at all. We can acknowledge 1 by asserting that 'X'. Then we can acknowledge 2 by saying 'What X isn't' And, finally proceeding to 3, based on our knowledge of 1 and 2 (X, and what X isn't), then we can start examining what it (X) really is in reality or to put another way, the sum total of 1 and 2, creates the grounds for beginning to examine 3 by constantly referring back to 1 and 2, with the loop starting from 1 to 2 and repeating until certainty can be arrived at.
1) Known knowns
2) Known unknowns
3) Unknown unknowns.
For us to begin examining known unknowns and unknown unknowns, we first have to acknowledge and understand 1 & 2, to get to 3, for there anything meaningful to be said at all. We can acknowledge 1 by asserting that 'X'. Then we can acknowledge 2 by saying 'What X isn't' And, finally proceeding to 3, based on our knowledge of 1 and 2 (X, and what X isn't), then we can start examining what it (X) really is in reality or to put another way, the sum total of 1 and 2, creates the grounds for beginning to examine 3 by constantly referring back to 1 and 2, with the loop starting from 1 to 2 and repeating until certainty can be arrived at.
Comments (11)
What is not X then becomes not only a known unknown, but an unkown unknown. When we take all knowledge, and we must according to the previous paragraph, then we can't extrapolate from there. Because to do so, we must have knowledge of things that are not X. But we have no such knowledge.
Therefore I must say that 2 does not exist; it's either known knowns, or unknown unknowns. This is the end point of the reasoning.
Yet in reality we have known unknowns. "How much does the third man in power in China weigh?" Is a known unknown. "Is the weight of this third person in power rapidly increasing now, or rapidly decreasing, or staying more-or-less the same?" This denies the unknown of the unknown.
So according to your essay, the test proves that "known unknowns" are in fact not in existence; and reality is such, that unknown unknowns are not known.
Therefore your theory, described in your essay, does not fit reality.
Any ideas or thoughts on the matter?
Thanks, Posty, I was wondering about that myself, but I slid over it lightly.
X can be a proposition or statement of any sort.
Quoting szardosszemagad
X can also be an existential quantifier or again a statement of any sort.
Quoting szardosszemagad
Well, it can be some causal factor that we don't understand. Take a scientific fact for example. We know the conditions that make it true, but there could arise conditions that challenge our understanding of said phenomena, then we have a known unknown to deal with.
Quoting szardosszemagad
See the previous paragraph.
Quoting szardosszemagad
Then we have no way of expanding our knowledge in that case or rather the conditions you limit epistemic knowledge would only be hard truths like 2 + 2 is 4.
An unknown known is something that you thought you knew was the case but was not in reality.
No, an unknown known is something that you know, but you don't know you know. Something you thought you knew but isn't is just a false belief.
I was quoting almost verbatim what Rummy said in one of his memo's or more explicitly in a documentary he starred in called 'The Unknown Known' (2013). It was worth a watch. I saw Fog Of War, also, but Rummy takes the cake, a true believer in the cause, unlike unbiased and cool McNamara in the Fog Of War.
Send a link if you can. Zizek has a knack for turning everything to some sexual impetus. I may as well have started that thread. I tend to bring up such obscure saying and when an analysis is applied, they get even muddier.
Typical Zizek. I liked the part where he said American's can't control themselves, it's the unknown knowns driving decision making.