Will work if X is everything we know. If X is a table, instead of everything we know, then a "What table is not " is a chair, and yet we know things about a chair. So X has to be the complete sum of all knowledge by a human or by a unit.

What is not X then becomes not only a known unknown, but an unkown unknown. When we take all knowledge, and we must according to the previous paragraph, then we can't extrapolate from there. Because to do so, we must have knowledge of things that are not X. But we have no such knowledge.

Therefore I must say that 2 does not exist; it's either known knowns, or unknown unknowns. This is the end point of the reasoning.

Yet in reality we have known unknowns. "How much does the third man in power in China weigh?" Is a known unknown. "Is the weight of this third person in power rapidly increasing now, or rapidly decreasing, or staying more-or-less the same?" This denies the unknown of the unknown.

So according to your essay, the test proves that "known unknowns" are in fact not in existence; and reality is such, that unknown unknowns are not known.

Therefore your theory, described in your essay, does not fit reality.

Deviating from the OP, I was wondering how does one arrive at knowledge or certainty given known knowns, known unknowns, and the seemingly metaphysical unknown unknowns?

Any ideas or thoughts on the matter?

how does one arrive at knowledge or certainty given known knowns, known unknowns, and the seemingly metaphysical unknown unknowns? — Posty McPostface

Thanks, Posty, I was wondering about that myself, but I slid over it lightly.

Will work if X is everything we know. — szardosszemagad

X can be a proposition or statement of any sort.

So X has to be the complete sum of all knowledge by a human or by a unit. — szardosszemagad

X can also be an existential quantifier or again a statement of any sort.

What is not X then becomes not only a known unknown, but an unkown unknown. — szardosszemagad

Well, it can be some causal factor that we don't understand. Take a scientific fact for example. We know the conditions that make it true, but there could arise conditions that challenge our understanding of said phenomena, then we have a known unknown to deal with.

Therefore I must say that 2 does not exist; it's either known knowns, or unknown unknowns. This is the end point of the reasoning. — szardosszemagad

See the previous paragraph.

So according to your essay, the test proves that "known unknowns" are in fact not in existence; and reality is such, that unknown unknowns are not known. — szardosszemagad

Then we have no way of expanding our knowledge in that case or rather the conditions you limit epistemic knowledge would only be hard truths like 2 + 2 is 4.

There is also one last case, which I think resolves the issue.

An unknown known is something that you thought you knew was the case but was not in reality.

No, an unknown known is something that you know, but you don't know you know. Something you thought you knew but isn't is just a false belief.

Zizek does an interesting analysis of this in one of his several million online vids. And I thought we discussed it here or on old PF before.

I was quoting almost verbatim what Rummy said in one of his memo's or more explicitly in a documentary he starred in called 'The Unknown Known' (2013). It was worth a watch. I saw Fog Of War, also, but Rummy takes the cake, a true believer in the cause, unlike unbiased and cool McNamara in the Fog Of War.

Zizek does an interesting analysis of this in one of his several million online vids. And I thought we discussed it here or on old PF before. — Baden

Send a link if you can. Zizek has a knack for turning everything to some sexual impetus. I may as well have started that thread. I tend to bring up such obscure saying and when an analysis is applied, they get even muddier.

Typical Zizek. I liked the part where he said American's can't control themselves, it's the unknown knowns driving decision making.