BF Knowledge and “Uknown unkowns”

[Explorer]

Where does knowledge of bigfoot fit on the Known-Unkown matrix?

 

According to Dr. Michael Smithson (professor of Psychology and Decision Making at the Australian National University) the answer to the question depends on who is making the attribution and towards whom. According to Dr. Smithson, no form of ignorance can be properly considered without explicitly tracking who is attributing it to whom.

 

According to established Science, there is no evidence for bigfoot and bigfoot does not exist. Therefore, there is no knowledge to be acquired and no gaps, just delusion or false convictions from the believers. Established Science most likely places the BF community in the “Unknown knowns” quadrant because they think that the BF community suffers from biases and refuses to look critically at the lack of evidence.

 

But according to eyewitnesses and bigfoot field researchers (let’s call this the BF community), there is anecdotal evidence suggesting that there is a true undiscovered creature, but they don’t know what it is.

 

Within the BF community there is disagreement of what is truly known about bigfoot and what is considered verifiable conclusive evidence. I think it is safe to say that there are no “Known knowns” or established facts in the bigfoot knowledge space.  I also believe that there are no “Uknown knowns” in the bigfoot knowledge space.  Therefore, the whole top half of the matrix does not apply to the BF research community. “Unknown knowns” is tacit knowledge or presumed knowledge that has been acquired from the BF research organizations - but in reality that tacit knowledge are just beliefs and assumptions.  Many researchers go to the field with assumptions about their target, but that is not knowledge. The lack of fruitful evidence collection over the years suggests that many of these assumptions are faulty. Some habituators might claim to have an ongoing interaction with the creatures and to know a lot about the bigfoots, but that information is only known to them (secret), and they might consider that knowledge to be “Unknown knowns” for the rest of the BF research community. This type of secret knowledge is not conducive to general knowledge and because it has not been verified by independent observers – it has limited value.

 

The remaining two quadrants fit better the bigfoot community knowledge space, but it depends on the communities’ beliefs (which are fragmented and follow a wide spectrum of belief from undiscovered ape to portal hoping alien).

 

For those who believe in the reality of bigfoot as an undiscovered hominid, then their knowledge space falls entirely on the “Known unkowns” quadrant. These researchers are aware of the reality of the phenomenon (because either they have seen the creature or are convinced of the circumstantial evidence) but know that there are huge gaps in the evidence and information gathered. This is the traditional route that many BF research organizations take.

 

For those who believe that the creature is real but is associated with the paranormal or with alternate dimensions, then they attribute ignorance toward both the BF research community (mainly those who believe on the undiscovered hominid) and the scientific community to fall on the “Uknown unknowns” quadrant because they claim that none of them are aware nor have any real knowledge of the paranormal or alternate dimensions. This knowledge will probably remain unknowable given the lack of testable and explanatory hypotheses being offered.  

 

Dr. Michael Smithson does offer some helpful tips or antidotes to those communities that want to tackle the “Uknown unknowns” and reduce their level of meta-ignorance and increase awareness. His list of antidotes is below:

 

1.      Humility. A little over-confidence can be a good thing, but if we want to be receptive to learning more about what we don’t know that we don’t know, a humble assessment of the little that we know will pave the way.

2.      Inclusiveness. Consulting others whose backgrounds are diverse and different from our own will reveal many matters and viewpoints we would otherwise be unaware of.

3.      Rigor. Subjecting our beliefs to stricter standards of evidence and logic than everyday life requires of us can quickly reveal hidden gaps and distortions.

4.      Explication. One of the greatest tests of our knowledge is to be able to teach or explain it to a novice.

5.      Acceptance. None of us can know more than a tiny fraction of all there is to know, and none of us can attain complete awareness of our own ignorance. We are destined to sail into an unknowable future, and accepting that makes us receptive to surprises, novelty, and therefore converting unknown unknowns into known unknowns. That unknowable future is not just a source of anxiety and fear, but also the font of curiosity, hope, aspiration, adventure, and freedom.

 

 

 

Reference:

https://i2insights.org/2019/09/10/how-can-we-know-unknown-unknowns/

 

Edited January 21 by Explorer

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Thanks for sharing. I am surprised that I actually understood it.

[hiflier]

Thanks, Explorer. Doesn't really solve anything but, If we were to be honest, the Sasquatch subject would fall somewhere between Known Knowns (information we are aware of and have evidence for) and Known Unknowns (conscious ignorance; information gaps or risks we are aware of). Seems an oxymoron to have both but I think, across the board, it mostly covers all the bases. It's a tough phenomenon to try and pigeon hole into just one of those boxes.