It's also acknowledging that our thinking is partly shaped by our terms. If you think in terms of Java, you might not see an elegant functional solution. If you

It's also acknowledging that our thinking is partly shaped by our terms. If you think in terms of Java, you might not see an elegant functional solution. If you think in Haskell, you might not see an elegant imperative solution. The known unknowns are like a door you haven't opened. The unknown unknown is not even realizing there's a door. It's a thrill to discover such doors. It makes me hopeful to think that just a couple of steps off the beaten track, there are miracles that the mainstream has not dreamed of (nor me). There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Such is the motivation of a would-be scientist/inventor/entrepreneur. One may laugh at such incompetent people as in the article... but how do we know we aren't incompetent? One way is objective tests: If we can pass a maths test, we likely know some maths. If our programs behaves as we predict, we likely know some coding. Another way is to consult with a community of people reputed to be competent, and ask them if we are. Universities do this - notwithstanding the study in the article - hopefully at least at the postgraduate level. I may be stupid, but at least I'm state-of-the-art-stupid. Of course, there are famous examples of radical scientists, scorned by the scientific establishment, who turned out to be right... (though perhaps famous more due to their appeal than their frequency.)