February 20, 2007

Rumsfeld and Epistemology

As I mentioned last week, ex-secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld was perhaps a bit more philosophical and smart than we are used to giving him credit for. In a Department of Defense news briefing in February 12th of 2002, Rumsfeld had a bit of an epistemology lesson for us. This is the relevant part (broken up for easier understanding):
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
This breakdown suggests a fourth possibility: unknown knowns. But why stop there? There are other possibilities once you get to the next meta-level (combinations of three clauses): unknown known unknowns, for instance.

I'd love to see some discussion arise out of this fairly short lesson on knowledge, and by discussion I don't mean insulting Rumsfeld and talking about how poor a job he might or might not have done as defense secretary (that would be a fallacy of relevance).

I'd love to see people:
  • Provide concrete examples that illustrate what each of the different possibilities entail,
  • Describe what combination possibilities are actually meaningful, and why,
  • Analyze Rumsfeld's conception of knowledge with respect to the definition of justified true belief Plato offered in the Theaetetus,
  • Offer new insights into what constitutes knowledge, etc.
Participation on this very specific entry will receive extra points for your blog participation grade, so get those brains working!

By the way, don't forget we have a logic test this week and that the reading is an excerpt of Descartes' Meditations. Check the online class calendar for details.

2 comments:

Ian said...

He leaves out his and Bush's favorite; things we think we know, but are unknown. Wherein they think they know whats going on but have no real idea.Rummy's observation is a good one though. It is important especially in his line of work to understand that there are these unknowns, and to seek to make them all "known knowns". His observations however dosn't make him wise though since to be wise wouldn't you first need to eliminate all the unknowns? Especially the "known unknowns" which is just ignorance and goes against Confucius's guide line for knowledge.

AlexB said...

I think, although repetitive and ridiculous sounding, that Rumsfeld makes a great point. He points out that as humans we know that our minds are limited but in knowing that we are limited it opens us up to possibility. In recognizing our limitations we have none. It’s like fighting a disease. Once you can label the disease you know what to prescribe to overcome it….it’s no longer a helpless situation but something that can change and get better. If we didn’t know that we were limited then we would continue to be ignorant and never progress into something better.