How Do We Know What We Know As Applied To Politices

Based on the Rumsfeld dialog with the press on the known, unknown, unknown knowns and known unknowns. We offer the following in an attempt to understand the epistemology of it all.
How do we know what is and what is not, that is how do we know that we know what it is that we know. If we know only what we think we know then is what we know actual or are we not knowing and filling in the blanks for what we think we know but what we know isn’t what we really know at all?

Fiction is based on what we might know if we knew what it is that we know but what if we don’t know what it is that we know but instead know things that we don’t know? How do we then tell fact apart form fiction? Don’t bother asking the senator from New York that is running for the office of president as they clearly have issues with what is known and instead aspire to the unknown weather or not it is known or not.

Perhaps we know what it is that we know by separating the known into two different pieces, the phenomenal (things we can’t see or test but believe anyway) and the noumena (that which we can see and test). This is different than inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning that rest on a foundation which is self evident and can be a landmine for political candidates which is why they tend to avoid it.

In this way we have things we can explain and things we can sort of explain. Then as we are able to test for more and test these things we can then know more as opposed to knowing less.

Then normal people have no issues with not knowing the known and they explain the unknown by ideas like prayer and miracles where as political canidates only know what is known and have no explanation of what they don’t know. Members of the press that are aware of the restriction of what the known unknown’s then baffle the candidate with the unknown known because of the phenomenal/noumena separation.

So how can we then know that the noumena even exist? Good question for another time, just remember not to ask the candidate to answer a question containing an unknown known or a known unknown as they will wax eloquent about anything and everything else and not answer the question. Why you ask, because they only know the known and are completely unaware of the phenomenal.

That’s how we see it.

Egor.