Comments on: When hypotheticals attack

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:28:02 +0000

We covered Rumsfeld at the time, coming to much the same conclusion as shteve and bi.

By: almostinfamous

almostinfamous — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:05:19 +0000

the list of unknown unknowns usually stretches to infinity. i always understood that ‘known unknowns’ are what we generally refer to as ‘unknowns’, and there was no reason to add an adjective, which led to the humour.

PS: you know what they say about jokes that need explanation

By: bi

bi — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 09:06:02 +0000

Well, yeah, but it still didn’t make sense when it came from Rumsfeld’s mouth.

By: smaug

smaug — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 05:00:03 +0000

This reminds me of Rumsfeldt and his Known Unknowns quote

Grrr. Argh.

Does anybody read anymore!

As an NIE begins to take form it carries three kinds of statements. The first is easily disposed of; it is the statement of indisputable fact (“The Soviets have a long-range heavy jet bomber, the Bison”). The second and third kinds do not carry any such certainty; each rests upon a varying degree of uncertainty. They relate respectively (a) to things which are knowable but happen to be unknown to us, and (b) to things which are not known to anyone at all.

Rumsfeld’s “known unknowns” derives from Shermn Kent’s A Crucial Estimate Revisited”, one of the best writings on “intelligence”, quoted above.

Some things we know we know: the known knowns
Some things we know don’t know: the known unknowns. (Today that would be, Does Iran want to construct a nuclear weapon?”)
What worries analysts are the unknown unknowns—this we don’t know that we don’t know. These are things we should be trying to find out but don’t realize we should be trying to find out. This is a variant of Thomas Friedman’s rule of journalism that the people that don’t want to talk to you are the people you most want to talk to.

By: shteve

shteve — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 21:46:10 +0000

The “Known unknowns …” concept is sound and makes sense – but not from Rumsfeld’s mouth.

Wouldn’t it be better if governments chose to “sit on their hands” more often? But then their salaries are paid from taxes, so they have to appear to be doing something. Otherwise, who could be bothered voting? Oh, wait …

By: Adrienne

Adrienne — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:07:29 +0000

Philosophy to the rescue?

the antecedent of a conditional is true—> the statement is not a conditional

Now naturally:
the antecedent is true—> antecedent exists

further, by definition:
antecedent exists the statement containing it is a conditional

this last premise can be restated as:
the antecedent exists AND the statement containing it is a conditional

But the first assumption can be restated as:
the antecedent exists—> the statement is not a conditional (substitution)
equivalently,
NOT (the antecedent exists AND the statement is a conditional)

Her claim is a contradiction. Do you think I should kindly send her a letter?

By: Chris Williams

Chris Williams — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:30:24 +0000

Actually, Rumsfeld’s known unknowns quote makes sense to me. Perhaps because I went to the same college as La Smith, I admit.

By: Helen

Helen — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:49:42 +0000

This reminds me of Rumsfeldt and his Known Unknowns quote.

By: Backword Dave

Backword Dave — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:25:31 +0000

Speaking of hypotheticals, what is our hypothetical suspect supposed to say or do on the 29th day that he or she would not have said or done in the previous 28? Are we interrogating them or asking them to submit an honours thesis?

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:59:43 +0000

Tancredo said something close to this during a debate when talking about torture. After the other candidates had given their two cents, he said (something along these lines) “This debate so far has been too theoretical. Let’s take it into the real world: what if…”

I guess he meant the hypothetical real world.

By: The Modesto Kid

The Modesto Kid — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:55:03 +0000

“become unhypothetical” is a neat construction.

By: mpowell

mpowell — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:45:23 +0000

It is true that this comes from journalists allowing politicians to refuse to answer ‘hypothetical’ questions. But frequently they use that tactic to say: I’m not answering that question b/c I’m running for this particular office and you’re asking me what I would do if I were in some other office. And the policy I would implement from that particular office might be different than the one I would implement in the office I’m currently running for and so answering this question will probably make me look bad for no good reason.

Or sometimes they’re just dodging the question. But with Tim Gotcha Russert asking the questions, you need easy ways to say: sorry, you’re a moron, next question, without offending the villager’s sensibilities.

On the other hand, it is entirely reasonable for legislators to pass laws for hypothetical situations if the law makes sense all things considered and those hypotheticals are, in fact, likely.

By: yoyo

yoyo — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:29:44 +0000

Not answering ‘hypotheticals’ is a damned good idea considering how central ‘flipflopping’ is to our political discourse.

By: Kieran Healy

Kieran Healy — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:23:31 +0000

Paging Sir Humphrey.

By: Grand Moff Texan

Grand Moff Texan — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:13:44 +0000

It won’t be hypothetical if and when it occurs.

“If and when” indicate that it’s still hypothetical, which means that when she “denied she was legislating for a hypothetical situation,” she was being a fucking moron.

Glad to know that US officials have no monopoly on this sort of behavior.

To say that the alternative is to “sit on our hands” isn’t so much as a false option as it is undignified hysteria.
.