What They Knew And When They Knew It
"There are no knowns," Mr Rumsfeld.
"There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns - that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know but there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know," Mr Rumsfeld said.
"So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns.
"And each year we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns."
United States Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld
audio mp3 130K) of Rumsfeld's remarks.
source ABC News via Interesting Monstah
Link to unknown unknowns mp3 This is the Stuffed Penguin version of his remarks
original audio mp3 130K) of Rumsfeld's remarks.
digg
del.icio.us
reddit
Newsvine
FaceBook
Stumble Upon
Comments
What I want to know is how he was able to say that without tripping over his tongue.
Posted by: Scott | June 13, 2002 9:27 PM
Scott, I think the answer to that is one of the unknown unknowns. :)
Posted by: Norm | June 13, 2002 9:39 PM
amusing, yes. but makes me think of people who misrepresent research. a study, set up a certain way, finds no evidence of a connection between x and y. and so people claim that x and y are not connected. when all that has been shown is that this particular study, set up as it was, did not find a connection. classic examples would be television and violence or child care and emotional development.
a failure to find proof of a connection is not proof that no connection exists, as rummy might say.
of course, people point out, or gloss over, this truth of research according to their preordained convictions.
bern
ps, interesting weblog
Posted by: bern | June 14, 2002 8:05 AM
Bern, You are certainly correct to point out the problem with purported casual relationships. They certainly can be tricky. Finding no evidence of a connection between x and y claim they are not connected or the converse when someone claims there is not evidence against a connection so that proves it is a connection. They are both wrong. You might be interested in this article on the subject.
Posted by: Norm | June 14, 2002 11:18 AM