View source for Talk:Limit of inquiry

While I'm not against the idea that there are limits as to what humans can know, I feel the physics and math examples in this article are misguided. To take G&ouml;del's incompleteness theorem, for example, humans do not think using first order logic or any other other formal system. The theorem is a proof of the limitation of formal systems, not human thought. [[User:Critical|Critical]] 01:40, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

===About Users Critical and CStar===
For the record, the user [[User:Critical | Critical]] ([[User talk: Critical | talk]], [[Special:contributions/Critical | contributions]]), who slapped the "disputed NPoV" sticker on this page, has made his or her first edits tonight (or today) and within less than two hours has attacked eight articles for PoV, including (ironically given the CStar example given on the [[Logical fallacy]] talk page), [[Physical law]].  These were the only "edits" (plus weak justifications on talk pages in the same vein as this one).  I don't think the PoV claim has merit.  We may ask if this series of attacks is to be taken seriously.

For the following reasons I am thinking that these pages has been the victim of a tiresome semi-sophisticated troll and '''the PoV sticker should be removed sooner rather than later, if not immediately'''.  We may note that [[User:CSTAR | CStar]] ([[User talk: CSTAR | talk]], [[Special:contributions/CSTAR | contributions]]) after making edits, paused during the period user Critical made edits, and then CStar took up responding to these edits after the series of user Critical edits ends, as if there is only one user involved, and the user logged out, changed cookies and logged back in.  Further, user CStar left a note on [[User talk:Charles_Matthews | Charles Matthew's talk page]], [[User talk:Chalst | Chalst's talk page]], and  [[User talk:Angela | Angela's talk page]] pointing to a supposed PoV accusation placed on the [[Logical argument]] page, when in fact no such sticker has been placed.  Perhaps the irony regarding the Physical law page is not so ironic. [[User:Hu|Hu]] 05:18, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

::: I have responded to this on the [[logical fallacy]] talk page, as well as on the pages of the above mentioned users.  It does appear that these pages were as Hu suggests ''the victim of a tiresome semi-sophisticated troll''.  But I wasn't the perpetrator.  This suggestion appears to have been an honest mistake, I consider the matter closed, and it appears that [[User:Hu|Hu]] does as well. [[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 01:39, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)