@ YB
“there is no need to take offense at being accused of not knowing ‘unknown unknowns ’because it cannot be helped , and no such offense was ever intended”
The kind of unknowns you where accusing him of are “should have known unknowns”, hence the use of the word naivete. Why are you backtracking from this? An olive branch?
@ AAQ
I’m a big fan of arguing a case from first principals (sometimes). I don’t see you doing that here. Your point of view on this subject requires accepting multiple propositions beyond first principals. You seem to be building your argument from what you perceive are, or ought to be, premises regarding which there is broad consensus. Clearly you see that this is not the case.