Unsubstantiated: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 12: Line 12:
*[[Truth]]
*[[Truth]]
*[[Rumsfeld’s taxonomy]]
*[[Rumsfeld’s taxonomy]]
*[[Forensic  
*[[Forensic epistemology]]
{{ref}}
{{ref}}

Revision as of 08:15, 24 February 2022

The Jolly Contrarian’s Glossary
The snippy guide to financial services lingo.™

There are six types of known.

The Rumsfeld three:

And the Jolly Contrarian three:

Index — Click the ᐅ to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

Unsubstantiated
/ʌnsəbˈstanʃɪeɪtɪd/ (adj.)

A bullshit artist’s tell. Something inconvenient or embarrassing that happened, but for which there is currently no proof or credible supporting or evidence.

To be contrasted something that did not happen, which may comfortably described as “false”.[1]

Thus, it is easy enough to disarm, by asking, “but is it untrue?”

“Substantiation” is thus a second-order property of a fact: something that, in the eyes of the outside world, falls between a “known known” and an “unknown known” in Rumsfeld’s taxonomy — call it a “not officially known”. This is a fact that, in the interior world of the person making the statement, falls squarely in the former category but, as far as she is prepared to admit to her audience, falls in the latter one.

See also

References

  1. We owe this observation to, among others, David Allen Green.