The Unknown Unknowns: Plato’s Allegory of the Cave

3/18/2016

In our last article on philosophy, we discussed the Scientific Method, that is, how we know the thing we know. In this article we ask a different question: 'why'. Science moves forward for a reason; at times out of necessity to solve a real-world problem, at others just for the joy of discovery. But a deeper answer comes in the form of a philosophical question of being.

Plato, the ancient Greek philosopher, attempts to illustrate this in his famous allegory: the Cave

"And at first he would most easily discern the shadows and, after that, the likenesses or reflections in water of men and other things, and later, the things themselves, and from these he would go on to contemplate the appearances in the heavens...and heaven itself" - Plato, "The Republic", Book VII, circa 380 B.C.

If you can recall our last article on philosophy, about epistemology and the scientific method of inquiry, then you now have a firm idea of how we know what we know. This however is just a part of the larger picture in the philosophical basis of science. Knowing ‘how’ will drive us into the future, but for that to be justified we must also know ‘why’.

‘Why’ is, in some ways, a far more profound question, as any of you who have had to answer the questions of an inquisitive four-year-old would know. Just as we do things for a reason, we also strive to know things for some reason as well.

In his treatise, The Republic, Plato explains this reason of knowing as a way for us to escape mental stagnation and ignorance. It also alludes to how we approach the unknown, those that we are aware of and those that we don’t.

The Allegory of the Cave

In the allegory, Plato, using Socrates as his medium, suggest that we imagine a group of people living in a cave deep in the Earth beyond the reach of sunlight. These people have been in this state since childhood, and are rendered immobile by being shackled and with their heads facing the cave wall.

So all their lives, they stay in the same place so that there is only one thing for them to look at: whatever they encounter in front of their faces, on the wall.
But their captors have at least the decency to provide them some light, from a fire that casts its glow from behind them, casting flickering shadows onto the wall. Between the fire and those who are shackled (behind their backs) there runs a walkway at a certain height, like the low curtain that puppeteers put up, over which they show their puppets.

Now all along this low wall people are carrying all sorts of things that reach up higher than the wall: statues and other carvings made of stone or wood and many other artifacts that people have made. As you would expect, some are talking to each other (voiced by the puppeteers) and some are silent.

What would those poor, shackled people, ignorant of anything else in the world think about what is being presented to them? Talking shadows of birds and animals, of fantastic creatures and divine beings? Would they think that the shadows themselves are talking? Would they then not believe whatever story the puppeteers tell them, no matter how much it flies in the face of plain, common reasoning?

Now assume that one was set free, and can therefore turn around and see the fire and ‘stage’ from which these puppet shows were set. A lifetime of belief in divine, ‘talking shadows’ is suddenly turned on its head. What would he think?

And if someone (probably the same kind soul who set them free) were to show him any of the things that were passing by and forced him to answer the question about what it was, don't you think that he would be at his wit's end and in addition would consider that what he previously saw was more unhidden than what was now being shown?

And if someone even forced him to look into the glare of the fire, would his eyes not hurt, and would he not then turn away and flee back into the darkness? Too frightened from the revelation, to him it is better to live in the dark then to witness the unfamiliar.

But what if he is coaxed into leaving the cave, and see the world, and an even brighter light, the sun? It would certainly blind him, and will take some getting used to. But what is more is not the sun itself, but what it illuminates. Before this, he had only known of ‘talking shadows’ and of their fantastic tales, but to see the world itself of birds, and animals, and trees, and people; to him it must have been as paradise foretold by the ‘talking shadows’.

Until he see the shadows themselves, plain and ordinary, just as the objects which cast them in the light of the sun. Obviously, his former beliefs vanishes, as this newly enlightened man see the world as it is. Nothing more and nothing less, no magic and no miracles. Just as it is.

Analysis

The allegory describes Plato's conception of reality. Humans appreciate every day objects through our senses, however, those objects are only 'shadows' of the true Forms, a concept Plato develops throughout his writings. Knowledge of the forms is the equivalent in the allegory of being released from the cave and seeing the world itself rather than shadows of the world.

In Plato’s theory, the cave represents people who believe that knowledge comes from what we see and hear in the world – empirical evidence. The cave shows that believers of empirical knowledge are trapped in a ‘cave’ of misunderstanding. The Shadows represent the perceptions of those who believe empirical evidence ensures knowledge. If you believe that what you see should be taken as truth, then you are merely seeing a shadow of the truth. In Plato’s opinion you are a ‘plebeian’ if you believe this (their insult for those who are not Philosophers).

The escaped prisoner represents the Philosopher, who seeks knowledge outside of the cave and outside of the senses. The Sun represents philosophical truth and knowledge. His intellectual journey represents a philosophers journey when finding truth and wisdom. And the other prisoners reaction to the escapee returning represents that people are scared of knowing philosophical truths and do not trust philosophers.

This is where the article's title comes in: the "unknown unknowns". There are three forms of knowledge awareness (or the lack of it): (1) the known knowns, (2) the known unknowns, and (3) the unknown unknowns.

The first, the known knowns, consists of things we know that we know; arithmetics, the words to Negaraku , the Earth revolving around the sun. These are established facts, supported by empirical evidence, and our awareness of them. The second, the known unknowns, are things that we know, but are unaware of; many of us are aware of books that we have yet to read, or knowledge that we have yet to learn. The third, the unknown unknowns, are things that we are unaware of; these are knowledge that we do do exist, but even their existence is unknown to us.

The practitioners of the scientific method are not so proud as to claim that they are infallible, and as for the things they do know, the will only go so far as to say that they have yet to be proven wrong. Dogmas on the other hand are based on rigid beliefs, and will never admit any falsehood even though there are no evidence to prove their beliefs, or even if there are proofs to their falsehood.

Dogmatism is after all, based on faith, not reason.

Ponder this

Are you in a cave right now? What do you believe? Have you ever questioned what you have been told? Do you want to climb out of the cave, or would you rather sit in the dark?

We know the things we know. We also know of the things we don't know. But we can't know the things we do not know of. The transition from the "unknown unknowns" to the "known unknowns" and finally to the "known knowns" is the basis of science. 200 years ago, subatomic particles were "unknown unknowns". 100 years ago, the Big Bang were "unknown unknowns", and 50 years ago, Higg's Bosons were "unknown unknowns". What else do we not know? What else do we think we know, but actually don't? Are we in a cave right now?

Discuss

You were told many things all this while. Some of them make sense, others do not. Of those that do not make sense, how many of them do you actually believe in? Why do you believe them? Are there evidence to prove that they are true? If not, why do you believe in them in the first place? Are explanations without evidence enough? If yes, what makes this explanation valid, while others are not?