Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Donald Rumsfeld wins award!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Donald Rumsfeld wins award!

    The Foot in Mouth award



    This award, which we first gave in 1993, is for a truly baffling comment.
    The 2003 winner is United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for comments in a press briefing.

    'Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, 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.'

    He truly deserved it

    http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/footinmouth.html
    "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

    Henry Alfred Kissinger

  • #2
    Nice award (a piece of art of its own)... Previous award winners are also worth reading.
    In the end, what does he know?

    Nemo

    Comment


    • #3
      "Reports that say something hasn't happened are interesting to me, because as we know, there are known unknowns; 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."

      This is an English speaker's IQ test. If you think it's absurd, you fail.

      If you are conducting scientific research based on some hypothesis, and your hypothesis fails, it does not fault your research or your science. You have learned something and you share it with your peers. Of course you don't get any credit for your hypothesis, just your science. But it is the science that is important. Collecting intelligence has the same character. Intelligence problems do not always have handles sticking out that offer a way in to a solution. You do not even have the proverbial "black box". The black box will certainly exist for someone, just not you. In human affairs there is no such thing as an infinite number of possibilities of events, but practically, sometimes it appears so.
      Get the US out of NATO, now!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by SparceMatrix
        If you are conducting scientific research based on some hypothesis, and your hypothesis fails, it does not fault your research or your science. You have learned something and you share it with your peers. Of course you don't get any credit for your hypothesis, just your science. But it is the science that is important. Collecting intelligence has the same character. Intelligence problems do not always have handles sticking out that offer a way in to a solution. You do not even have the proverbial "black box". The black box will certainly exist for someone, just not you. In human affairs there is no such thing as an infinite number of possibilities of events, but practically, sometimes it appears so.
        You're really upset you didn't win it this year, aren't you? Don't worry though...with that statement, I think you'll be a definite "shoe-in" for next years award...
        I have no problem at all with being proved wrong. Especially when being proved wrong leaves the world a better place, than being proved right...

        Comment


        • #5
          Aw shucks, c'mon, bust a few neurons. What did I say wrong? What did I miss? Afraid you might win a few awards yourself? The old saying goes, "It is better to be silent and thought a fool than open ones mouth and remove all doubt."

          Not always.
          Get the US out of NATO, now!

          Comment


          • #6
            LoL ... you did not SAY anything wrong .... but you get it all wrong ...

            This award is not for someone who can't say "right things" ... (otherwise, the Iraqi dude might as well have won it...) ... it is an award, isn't it? That is for you, the "right " kind
            Attn to ALL my opponents:

            If you sent me your turn and after 24 hours, you still did not get anything from me, please be sure to post in the forum to ask for what is going on.

            Remember, I ALWAYS reply within 24 hours, even if I do NOT have time to play my turn, in which case I will at least send you email to tell you that I will have to play it later, but I DO receive your turn.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by SparceMatrix
              Aw shucks, c'mon, bust a few neurons. What did I say wrong? What did I miss?
              LoL..."bust a few neurons"? Sounds like a challenge. In the mood I'm in tonight, do you really want me to perform a logical deconstruction of your topic paragraph?

              Go ahead...dare me...
              I have no problem at all with being proved wrong. Especially when being proved wrong leaves the world a better place, than being proved right...

              Comment


              • #8
                LoL ... you did not SAY anything wrong .... but you get it all wrong ...

                This award is not for someone who can't say "right things" ... (otherwise, the Iraqi dude might as well have won it...) ... it is an award, isn't it? That is for you, the "right " kind
                That is so sad. See? Right away you launch into the very witless jibberish that you accuse Rumsfield of. And naturally you avoid complete sentences. And of course the former Iraqi communications minister dealt in propoganda, which is never obligated to reality, much less coherence.

                Your problem is obvious. Small boats should stay close to shore.
                Get the US out of NATO, now!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Go ahead...dare me...
                  Are you really that slow? I already have dared. Consider yourself dared. Do it. You would have already done it if you had half a wit.
                  Get the US out of NATO, now!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by SparceMatrix
                    Are you really that slow? I already have dared. Consider yourself dared. Do it. You would have already done it if you had half a wit.
                    Just spending time, right now. I'll get to it, after my daughter's birthday mini-celebration.

                    For my next joke, "How do you keep an idiot in suspense?"

                    Answer to follow...
                    I have no problem at all with being proved wrong. Especially when being proved wrong leaves the world a better place, than being proved right...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Kraut
                      'Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, 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.'
                      What I find interesting is that this is est/lifespring jargon. Makes you think the whole Bush administration is a similar sort of pyramid scheme.
                      ...a man that can stand up for a principle and sit down on his own stool.
                      -the Firesign Theatre

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by SparceMatrix
                        This is an English speaker's IQ test. If you think it's absurd, you fail.

                        If you are conducting scientific research based on some hypothesis, and your hypothesis fails, it does not fault your research or your science. You have learned something and you share it with your peers. Of course you don't get any credit for your hypothesis, just your science. But it is the science that is important. Collecting intelligence has the same character. Intelligence problems do not always have handles sticking out that offer a way in to a solution. You do not even have the proverbial "black box". The black box will certainly exist for someone, just not you. In human affairs there is no such thing as an infinite number of possibilities of events, but practically, sometimes it appears so.
                        What follows is a logical deconstruction of the author's quote, demonstrating argumentive fallacies, inept analogies and lack of context. It is possible that the author may have intended to argue differently, but as quoted a literal interpretation of his text leads inescapably to the following conclusions:

                        The author's argument consists of two paragraphs. A brief, preliminary assertion that the message that he quoted is "an English speaker's IQ test." Whether made knowingly, or not, this begins a pattern of incorrect statements. A quick perusal of the website of the organization presenting the award will demonstrate the intent of the award is not to test IQ's, but rather to promote "Plain English" that is easily understood by the common English speaker, or reader.

                        Obviously then, his following claim that "If you think it's absurd, you fail." is completely unsupported by the context of the subject matter.

                        Now, we dissect the author's main paragraph. Again, given the context of his insinuative dismissal of both those who awarded this distinction upon Mr. Rumsfeld, as well as those who support such an award, it is clear that the author is attempting, by use of analogy, to link scientific method and intelligence gathering operations, while implicitly supporting Mr. Rumsfeld's award-winning quote.

                        First, we will note the problems inherent in the author's exposition of the scientific method.
                        If you are conducting scientific research based on some hypothesis, and your hypothesis fails, it does not fault your research or your science. You have learned something and you share it with your peers. Of course you don't get any credit for your hypothesis, just your science. But it is the science that is important.

                        Essentially the logical equivalent of this first sentence is
                        Given A (Hypothesis) AND B (Research), NOT A implies B is valid.

                        The obvious problem with this is that the research, or testing, methods used may very well be faulty, invalid, or unduplicable. All of which may lead to the false rejection of the hypothesis. Thus, the statement is logically unsupportable.

                        To further compound this error, by claiming that the scientific community disregards the formulation of hypotheses as insignificant understates the importance to that body of "asking the right questions". The "scientific method" is generally agreed to contain the following four steps:
                        1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

                        2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

                        3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

                        4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

                        To emphasize, the entire sequence is necessary, so no single aspect of it can be maintained as being overly important to the detriment of the remainder.

                        To be fair, it may well be argued that intelligence gathering and analysis can be, or should be, approached with the basic template of the scientific method in mind. However, though the author seems to imply this, his assertions in the second half of his main paragraph neither build on the basic steps of the scientific method, nor directly on the analogy he makes in the first half.
                        Collecting intelligence has the same character. Intelligence problems do not always have handles sticking out that offer a way in to a solution. You do not even have the proverbial "black box". The black box will certainly exist for someone, just not you. In human affairs there is no such thing as an infinite number of possibilities of events, but practically, sometimes it appears so.

                        There is nothing in this statement that is analogous to the scientific method. Indeed, by claiming that "The black box will certainly exist for someone, just not you." the author disregards a primary condition of the fourth step (the one he presumably favors above all others) of the scientific method; that of repeatability of results. If the "black box" does not yield the same output, given the same input, then the analysis cannot be deemed conclusive.

                        Finally, this entire portion of the paragraph, if anything, simply is a rambling diatribe on how difficult the act of assessing intelligence related concerns can be. A point that could have been made with much less confusion. Hence, in the spirit of the "Foot in Mouth" award, the author demonstrates his presumed sympathy for this year's recipient, with a passage worthy of consideration for next year's competition.

                        QED
                        I have no problem at all with being proved wrong. Especially when being proved wrong leaves the world a better place, than being proved right...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          LoL ... (but honestly, I only read the last part )
                          Attn to ALL my opponents:

                          If you sent me your turn and after 24 hours, you still did not get anything from me, please be sure to post in the forum to ask for what is going on.

                          Remember, I ALWAYS reply within 24 hours, even if I do NOT have time to play my turn, in which case I will at least send you email to tell you that I will have to play it later, but I DO receive your turn.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by SparceMatrix
                            The black box will certainly exist for someone, just not you.
                            Oh yeah? And all your base are belong to us.
                            ...a man that can stand up for a principle and sit down on his own stool.
                            -the Firesign Theatre

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by JAMiAM
                              ...
                              If you are conducting scientific research based on some hypothesis, and your hypothesis fails, it does not fault your research or your science. You have learned something and you share it with your peers. Of course you don't get any credit for your hypothesis, just your science. But it is the science that is important.

                              Essentially the logical equivalent of this first sentence is
                              Given A (Hypothesis) AND B (Research), NOT A implies B is valid.

                              ..
                              Jamiam it was your translation, Spacematrix said something different...
                              a brain cell

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X