FYI, the thread highlighted here is still continuing, though one wonders if it might be losing utility!
The following is offered only as a laugh, and truly no offense intended to the originator. At times, the distance between mind and keyboard can be dauntingly immense:
The first forcing is unknown; the second forcing is also unknown; I fail to see where you have an unknown unknown. We suspect that something undefined going on: that we know. If we know that there must be something there, we know at least that. Something is known there. Knowledge is something we know, not something we don't. So what is called the "unknown unknown" is actually a known (unknown) unknown. God knows what you can do with unknown unknown unknowns. A known unknown unknown is not very different from a known unknown, unless you come up with a very intriguing epistemic logic. The distinction is interesting if you're a Secretary of defense indulging in spelling out a Johari window. Strictly speaking, the only thing you can say about unknown unknown is that we don't know nothing about that. And even that, we know.
and no, context does not help that comment!
- Log in to post comments
I've gotten to know Willard over email and IM over the past couple of weeks. There's more to him than meets the eye, and while he can be opaque, he is indeed very funny, oftentimes deliberately.
English is not his first language, and he is not a rat.
He is also the curator of the astonishing Neverending Audit, a feed you need.
I'm with Michael Tobis on this -- not only is the comment (seemingly deliberately) funny, it also actually does make sense, although I did have to pound my head against the wall a few times before I understood it.