Dear Editor,
After the Oracle of Delphi had revealed that Socrates was the wisest man in Athens, Socrates responded by saying, “Although I do not know that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is, for he knows nothing and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know.” That was the epistemic humility on display which was characteristic of the great ancient Greek philosopher Socrates. Celebrated during his lifetime as the wisest man in Athens, Socrates professed certainty only of his ignorance, claiming, “I know that I know nothing.”
This Aphorism of Socrates has been recycled throughout history seeping into some of the greatest works of literature and philosophy and quoted by the likes of William Shakespeare, Ernest Hemingway and Voltaire, among other literary and philosophical titans. These “greats” were acutely aware that the intelligent being is cognizant of the fact that he or she cannot understand everything.
Let’s ponder these questions: How do we know? How do we know that we know? Are we capable of knowing absolutely? What does it mean for someone to know? What kinds of research do we do? What methodology do we use? How do we do our research? These are all epistemological questions which guide and orient us to uncover veils of “truth” which we hope can withstand scrutiny. But as soon as we discover an explanation for an unknown phenomenon, no sooner are we relegated right back to our humiliating position of ignorance. Our line of inquiry is limited to the observation we have at hand. There can be a future observation that denies previous conclusions, so much so to the chagrin of Galileo Galilei, Albert Einstein and others.
As a species we seem to have evolved to ask the big questions, but miserably lack the mental capacity and tools to provide us with absolute and definitive answers. In this state we are constantly in a flux adding one story or interpretation to another in the process elevating and dignifying some while undermining and reducing others. Being the limited creatures we are, we can only understand, conduct and plan our lives based on the information at our disposal which so often is at variance with the true reality or picture. We plan for outcomes that do not necessarily manifest in a manner anticipated. Our expectations of order and certitude are frequently betrayed by chaos.
In the absence of adequate information sometimes we are unable to wrap our brains fully around the modus operandi, origin and effects of a threat .This can stymie our chances for generating appropriate and timely solutions. We are at a loss as to how to catapult ourselves from the realm of the unknown to that of the known. Intelligent anticipation of future tasks then becomes blurry and is replaced by skepticism. Strategic planning is rendered ineffective, erroneous and unreliable.
Planning while not being fully in the know, which seems to be our neverending fate, reinforces our status as perpetual unknowables. However, in this limited sense we can compensate for the gaps of knowledge in our intellectual reservoir by engaging in exhaustive contingency planning and robust probabilistic reasoning based on the information in our possession. Every detail is meticulously planned and given consideration, just the same as an intelligence operative who is forming a dossier for the elimination of a target; no stone is left unturned.
Modelling of the existing threat or challenge with available information provides us first with a partial mental picture of what is at hand. Acting with foresight and intellectual curiosity upon the picture that has emerged will invariably lead to more information becoming available. Further Interrogation of the emergent scenario with analytical tools such as the 5W questions will help to reveal its capabilities, threats, target audience, intentions, tactics, movements, objectives etc.
Now with an enhanced picture and understanding of what you are trying to combat or neutralise, planning your response will inevitably have to be done against your existing capabilities, tasks, inventories, support services, command and control structures, communication strategies, logistics, availability and composition of key personnel, objectives, counter-tactics, etc.
Matching your strengths and weaknesses against that of the threat or challenge will help to develop a probability distribution of possible outcomes and likely responses. The best plan gives you the most options up to the last possible minute. This will aid in the elimination of possibilities with small odds or chances of occurring, enabling you to redirect scarce resources, energy and time elsewhere.
A timely implementation of the coordinating instructions – the timeline for the harmonious execution of the plan – hinges upon whether one adopts an offensive/proactive posture or a defensive/passive one. The choice of approach oftentimes can be the difference between achieving one’s objectives or becoming overwhelmed and overrun by the “enemy”. Notwithstanding, in the final analysis it is timing that seems to be everything.
Orlando Patterson
