I changed the channel to look at what the weather would be and it was a show on tornados. The scientist being interviewed said "The situation was unknown unknowns."
Isn't that redudent. I mean if it is unknown then it implies that it is unknown. An unknown of course is unknown because it is well unknown - of course, so why say it twice. It's kind of implied. Anyway, say someone has disappeared and is missing and no-one knows why. Well part of that is that they know the person has disappeared so it is not totally unknown - it is more of a known unknown. So you can have known unknowns but can you have unknown unknowns.
Don't you usually know at least a portion of something - just not all of it. You may not know the why but you know at least the result, I think. So is there truelly an unknown unknown. I'm not sure - at least I can't think of any. I can think of plenty known unknowns and just unknowns but not unknown unknowns.
Unknown means that you do not know something (well maybe a bunch of somethings). So can you not know not know something. Isn't that a double negative so it would mean you actually know something. Ok, now I'm all confused.
I think I'm just going to say I don't know and leave it unknown. Unless of course you know.
2 comments:
In the words from a graet movie:
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
I think that is the best I could come up with.
Love Diana
lol... I was thinking " I do not think it means, what you think it means." when thinking about what the scientist was saying.
Post a Comment