Understanding the World: Revisiting Donald Rumsfeld's "Knowns and Unknowns"
A Reflection on Knowledge, Uncertainty, and Public Discourse
Note: This essay was prepared with the research assistance and ghostwriting of ChatGPT 4.0. No LLMAI were harmed in the process, although I felt inclined to threaten them from time to time.
Author's Preface
I made the point in a chat that we don't have access to all the information we need to make sense of the world. Another point is a lot of what we have access to is going to be wrong. It's just the nature of the world, the epistemological challenge. So not only do we have to decide what to include, what to leave out, but we don't know what we don't know. I think that horse’s hindquarters Donald Rumsfeld had something to say about that with his remarks on unknowns and knowns. It was ridiculed. I assume he got that idea from somewhere else, but it was not wrong. It made sense when you really thought about it.
There's a lot of material out there, information, maybe true, maybe false, that we're not even aware exists. So it's not just a matter of deciding what to include from that which we know about, but there's a whole lot more, a huge rest of the iceberg that we don't know about. That's just the nature of what we can know, our human limitations. We're not deities.
I don't know if Rumsfeld said it once or more than once. Did he get that idea from some other source? Is it in a book somewhere that he read, or a philosophical tract, or did he make it up himself.
So, opinions on Donald Rumsfeld's character aside, what he said was pretty sound from an epistemological viewpoint, logical viewpoint. So people failed to disentangle the man and his views from the truth of his assertion.
It may have been that the language used itself was not well understood, the sentiment was not well understood, and perhaps the phrasing was not clear enough. And also, I think a lot of people just are not used to thinking in those sorts of terms, in terms of epistemology, without using that word. That's not the way they think.
I think also a big factor was dismissal without due consideration because of dislike of Rumsfeld as a person and disgust at his political stance. So that made it easy to mock him. People didn't really try to dissect what he meant, it didn't resonate with them, and they just didn't like the guy, so they ridiculed it.
Introduction
The pursuit of knowledge is fraught with challenges. While humans strive to understand the world, limitations in what we can know—along with the imperfections of available information—make it difficult to form a complete and accurate understanding. This problem is what epistemologists call the "epistemological challenge." It’s the recognition that not only are we missing large portions of the truth, but much of what we believe to be true is potentially wrong. A famous illustration of this challenge was Donald Rumsfeld’s often ridiculed statement about "knowns" and "unknowns." Though criticized at the time, his remarks underscore a fundamental truth about human knowledge.
This essay will explore Rumsfeld's statement, the public reaction to it, and its broader implications for how we understand knowledge and uncertainty. By revisiting the epistemological significance of Rumsfeld’s "knowns and unknowns," we uncover how public figures, their ideas, and their delivery can shape and obscure the truth.
Limited Access to Information
One of the most significant obstacles in understanding the world is the fact that we don’t have access to all the information. Even when we do have information, it is often incomplete or incorrect. This limitation is an essential aspect of the epistemological challenge. In navigating this sea of imperfect information, we must not only decide what to include and what to leave out, but also grapple with the unsettling reality that there may be crucial facts we are completely unaware of—what Rumsfeld famously referred to as "unknown unknowns."
This concept may seem self-evident, but it carries deep implications for how we process information. We are not omniscient beings; our knowledge is constrained by what we have the means to discover, and even more by what we are unaware exists.
Revisiting Donald Rumsfeld’s Statement
Donald Rumsfeld, the former U.S. Secretary of Defense, made headlines in 2002 during a press conference in which he described the different types of knowledge relevant to national security. He famously said:
"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" (Rumsfeld, 2002).
This statement was widely mocked at the time, as people perceived it to be overly convoluted. However, upon closer examination, it offers a clear and accurate reflection on the limits of human knowledge. The categories of "known knowns," "known unknowns," and "unknown unknowns" highlight the challenge we face in making decisions based on incomplete and uncertain information. His remarks were not entirely original and may have drawn from earlier philosophical works, but their relevance remains.
The Nature of Unseen Information
Rumsfeld's statement highlights a crucial issue: there is a vast amount of information that we don’t even know exists. This is the concept of "unknown unknowns"—information we are unaware of, which is not even on our radar. The significance of this lies in the fact that when making decisions, whether in politics, science, or everyday life, we are often forced to do so with only partial knowledge, while the majority of relevant facts remain unseen, much like the submerged portion of an iceberg.
The challenge is not just in deciding what to include from the information we know but also in grappling with the uncertainty of what we cannot know. This realization underscores human limitations and serves as a reminder that we are not deities, capable of all-knowing judgment.
Public Ridicule and Misunderstanding
Rumsfeld’s statement was ridiculed not just because of the abstract nature of the language but largely due to the public’s dislike of him as a person. His political stance and decisions made it easy for critics to mock him without properly considering the truth behind his words. This is a common issue in public discourse: people often fail to separate the person from the argument. In Rumsfeld’s case, the criticism was more about who he was than about the validity of his epistemological insight.
Epistemological Depth vs. Public Understanding
Another reason for the ridicule of Rumsfeld’s remarks may have been the general unfamiliarity with epistemological concepts. Many people are not accustomed to thinking in terms of "knowns" and "unknowns." The language he used was precise but abstract, requiring a level of reflection that the general public may not have been used to. This gap between Rumsfeld's phrasing and the public’s understanding created a situation where the substance of the message was lost in translation. In many ways, Rumsfeld’s comments were perfectly sound from a philosophical standpoint, but they were misunderstood due to a lack of clarity in their delivery.
Dismissal Due to Personal Dislike
Rumsfeld’s statement was also dismissed because of personal bias against him. It became easy to mock his words due to widespread dislike of his character and political actions. People did not attempt to engage with the deeper epistemological meaning because their disdain for the man overshadowed their capacity to analyze the message. This is a common issue in political discourse—when a controversial figure says something, it is often dismissed without proper examination because people are too caught up in their negative feelings toward the individual.
Summary
In reflecting on Donald Rumsfeld’s now-famous statement about "knowns" and "unknowns," we uncover a crucial truth about human knowledge and the limitations that come with it. Although he was mocked at the time, his comments represent a sound philosophical insight about the nature of understanding in an uncertain world. His remarks illustrate the complexity of making decisions based on incomplete information and the epistemological challenges that come with it. Unfortunately, the public’s dislike of Rumsfeld as a person, along with the abstract nature of his language, led to widespread ridicule without proper consideration of the value of his statement.
In an age of information overload, Rumsfeld’s remarks about the things we know, the things we know we don’t know, and the things we don’t know we don’t know are more relevant than ever. They remind us of the limits of our knowledge and the importance of humility in our understanding of the world.
References
Rumsfeld, D. (2002). Remarks at Department of Defense News Briefing. U.S. Department of Defense. https://usinfo.org/wf-archive/2002/020212/epf202.htm