480:
which cannot exhibit comparability? How can one arrive at a conclusion – this is different from that or this is similar to that in no thing can exhibit comparability? Aren’t they taught in schools and written in textbooks? The statement ‘everything is comparable to everything else’ directly implies that ‘things which cannot exhibit comparability cannot be made.’ How much research, thinking or resources a common man need to restate the preceding statement to ‘no one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit comparability’? Everything is comparable to everything else: is this an apriori proposition, or postori inference, or a fact, or a common knowledge out of experience?
718:. this is NOT an accusation of sockpuppetry, just pointing out a second article in this vein, and hopefully someone can help good faith supporters and creators of these articles understand why this kind of material doesnt belong here unless its a summary of a published authors views, with refs. These essays may be in fact true (not our call), but they are not verifiable from reliable sources, and WP is not a peer reviewed journal of philosophy, or a free webhosting service.
508:
directly implies that ‘things which cannot exhibit satisfiablity cannot be made.’ How much research, thinking or resources a common man need to restate the preceding statement to ‘no one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit satisfiablity‘? Everything is satisfiable: is this an apriori proposition, or postori inference, or a fact, or knowledge out of experience?
492:‘things which cannot exhibit disturbability cannot be made.’ How much research, thinking or resources a common man need to restate the preceding statement to ‘no one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit disturbability‘? Everything is sensitive and disturbable: is this an apriori proposition, or postori inference, or a fact, or knowledge out of experience?
474:
exhibit divisibility cannot be made.’ How much research, thinking or resources a common man need to restate the preceding statement to ‘no one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit divisibility’? ‘Everything is divisible: is this an apriori proposition, or postori inference, or a fact, or common knowledge out of experience?
486:
cannot be made.’ How much research, thinking or resources a common man need to restate the preceding statement to ‘no one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit connectivity‘? Everything is connected to everything else: is this an apriori proposition, or postori inference, or a fact, or knowledge out of experience?
504:
How much research, thinking or resources a common man need to restate the preceding statement to ‘no one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit substitutability‘? Everything is substitutable: is this an apriori proposition, or postori inference, or a fact, or knowledge out of experience?
805:
I learned something very useful for my future from wikipedia. Make people to write on your behalf, never write which is useful to the public. Many people will come with the same title or titles like indivisible potato or indivisible egg. If you are curious to know what I did, just looks at this link:
491:
4.Is there anyone to say: I have not heard about disturbability; I have not heard that everything is disturbable/sensitive/susceptible; I have not heard that nothing is insensitive? Aren’t they taught in schools and written in textbooks? The statement ‘everything is disturbable’ directly implies that
213:
No one except the intellects can make things which cannot exhibit: 1. divisibility 2. comparability 3. connectivity 4. disturbability 5. reorderability 6. substituability and 7. satisfiability. So, people must be educated not to ask the questions in order to keep reputation of intellectual integrity.
603:
it is still OR after any changes that were made. creator doesnt seem to understand: for this kind of work, you have to get your thesis published in a peer review journal, from a publisher of note (not a vanity press or self published), then get the material adopted for a class, or discussed in major
524:
The most appropriate title for an article on the knowledge about cow would be THE COW. The most appropriate title for an article on the knowledge about swine flu would be THE SWINE FLU. In the same manner, the most appropriate title on the knowledge about the knowledge which no one can have would be
386:
First of all, this artcile is not out of any original research. Every part of the artcile can be found as facts in various textbooks and research articles. Students are generally informed on the relationship between the knoweldge one can have about a thing and the properties of things, and about the
314:
clearly original research/synthesis. Also clearly the work of someone who feels very strongly about a priori propositions, this does not present a neutral overview and the article title is indicative of this. The article has been substantially revised but the fundamental problems remain. As a result
281:
I would nominate for speedy deletion if i was more familiar with process. article doesnt indicate reason for notability. the idea of there being unknowable things is, regardless of the truth of it, a notable subject. it may be covered in other philosophy articles, but this is pure original research,
503:
6.Is there anyone to say: I have not heard about substitutions; I have not heard that everything has a substitute? Aren’t they taught in schools and written in textbooks? The statement ‘everything is substitutable’ directly implies that ‘things which cannot exhibit substitutability cannot be made.’
497:
5.Is there anyone to say: I have not heard about reordering; I have not heard that everything is reorderable? Aren’t they taught in schools and written in textbooks? The statement ‘everything is reorderable’ directly implies that ‘things which cannot exhibit reorderability cannot be made.’ How much
391:
now is that the present day school teachings somehow make the students to think that there is no conceptual relationship among the subjects which they study in schools. Being a biophysical chemistry teacher, for the last four or five batch of students, I find that the students completely fail to go
507:
7.Is there anyone to say: I have not heard about statisfiability; I have not heard that everything is required to satisfy the plan with which it is created; I have not heard about need or requirement? Aren’t they taught in schools and written in textbooks? The statement ‘everything is satisfiable’
485:
3.Is there anyone to say: I have not heard about connectivity; I have not heard that everything is connected to everything else? Aren’t they taught in schools and written in textbooks? The statement ‘everything exhibits connectivity’ directly implies that ‘things which cannot exhibit connectivity
498:
research, thinking or resources a common man need to restate the preceding statement to ‘no one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit reorderability ?‘ Everything is reorderable: is this an apriori proposition, or postori inference, or a fact, or knowledge out of experience?
479:
2.Is there anyone to say: I have not heard about comparability; I have not heard that everything is comparable to everything else; nothing is completely isolated? How can one say that a thing is different from or similar to the other things without making a comparison? How can one compare things
473:
1.Is there anyone to say: I have not heard about divisibility; I have not heard that everything is divisible; I have not heard that nothing is indivisible? Aren’t they taught in schools and written in textbooks? The statement ‘everything is divisible’ directly implies that ‘things which cannot
359:
statements. The question of what can and cannot be known and stated has no established philosophical consensus and a neutral treatment of the topic requires a different presentation than this article. You might, for instance, incorporate quotations from your source authors into other relevant
513:
How much research or intelligence is required to put the arugments 1 to 7 and make the statement : ‘no one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit: divisibility, comparability, connectivity, disturbability, reorerability, substitutability, and satisfiablity?
299:
is as simple as putting a tag on the page (and notifying the author, to be polite). But the CSD categories are very specific and so not always usable even in the case of some pages which should be undebatably deleted. This particular article doesn't qualify. •
396:
The article has been completely revised again so that it meets the wikipedia quality standards. If any further references or any modification is needed, kindly let me know before deletion. I can spent time to revise, if any further modification is required.
684:
Do any one of the wikipeida reader or admin or editor heard about - ESSENTIAL PROPERTIES OF EXISTENCE? It is not late, Start seaching. You won't find it in internet. Come to me I will teach you - what is meant by ESSENTIAL PROPERTIES OF EXISTENCE.
158:
713:
which also doesnt have refs, which i proposed for deletion, and which has some overlap with this article in editing and commentary on talk and deletion pages. the IP address shown here has edited this, and previously edited it as
387:
limits of human knowledge. No part of the article is a new knowledge acquired through any extensive research. Although it is told in the classroom, no attempt has been made before to prepare and publish a formal article.
392:
beyond what they have studied in the undergraduate courses and make a exhaustive search on the knowledge base. Other than this, there is no intention in putting this artcile in wikipedia or any other site.
762:
739:
As the author says "Are the information content of this article not known to the people before?" since he says it is not, it does not belong here. I suggest a SNOW to avoid his further embarrassment.
152:
231:
I feel like there's an inside joke here that I'm missing out on. Since this article was first created (and CSD'd) on
October 7th, the content seems to have been published everywhere from
806:
http://the.secret.angelfire.com/secret.pdf
Knowledge (XXG) will have daytime nightmares in deleting the article. I know how to motivate the people by insult. Let us play a fair game.
92:
87:
96:
119:
543:
Indistinguishable from a parody. I checked a couple of the sources and some could be said to confirm the imprecise sentence for which the source is cited. However, it is extreme
79:
173:
189:
Meaning no offense to the creator, but this isn't an encyclopedia article, it's an essay, and seems, in its current form, to violate many of the
140:
822:
692:
585:
413:
826:
797:
774:
751:
727:
700:
673:
652:
631:
613:
589:
560:
534:
525:
THE KNOWELDGE WHICH NO ONE CAN HAVE. What else would be the appropriate title for an article on the knowledge which no one can have? --
461:
417:
369:
346:
328:
304:
291:
273:
251:
223:
205:
61:
244:
134:
17:
130:
785:
83:
569:
What is the difference between fact and parody? Do you mean every fact of this article parody? If there is, highlight it.
180:
662:. As Johnuniq noted above, this article is based primarily on synthesis. The subject is too ill-defined for an article. —
75:
67:
843:
36:
452:
Do the younger generation be ignorant of the relationship between the properties of things and the human knowledge?--
710:
788:, where a recent edit by the article's creator seems to accept that this article should be / will be deleted. --
723:
609:
356:
287:
146:
842:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
818:
696:
627:
581:
530:
457:
409:
342:
219:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
604:
venues, or found a widely supported nonprofit educational organization based on it. THEN you get an article.
810:
688:
573:
401:
814:
623:
577:
526:
453:
405:
338:
215:
365:
337:
Is this article biased? If biased, to which it is biased? Kindly let me know, so that I can remove it.--
324:
719:
715:
648:
605:
283:
236:
232:
793:
770:
269:
166:
57:
360:
articles as part of presenting an overview of different philosophical perspectives on this topic.
556:
544:
240:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
315:
of reading the older version, I am now haunted by visions of non-disturbable and indivisible
49:
669:
622:
Is there any knowelge which is undisputable? D0 the journals publish the common knowlege? --
361:
320:
201:. (And well, if it's salvageable, at least this AFD will bring it some needed attention.) •
296:
198:
190:
644:
548:
261:
789:
766:
301:
265:
248:
202:
53:
194:
747:
552:
449:
Do the younger generation have no right to know the knowledge which no one can have?
352:
113:
664:
431:
Are the information content of this article not known to the people before?
282:
and can be safely deleted. i dont believe its even debatable at this point.
742:
376:
Are they apriori propostions alone? Aren't they post ori obervations?
763:
836:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
440:
Is this article biased? If biased, to which it is biased?
193:. I don't see how it can be sourced properly and satisfy
443:
Is the information content of the article unverifiable?
316:
109:
105:
101:
165:
434:
Is the information content of this article offensive?
468:
Is this article a thesis? Is this article an essay?
179:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
846:). No further edits should be made to this page.
48:at original contributor's request and also per
551:to make an essay out of the cited components.
8:
786:Talk:The Knowledge Which No One Can Have
437:Is this article inadequately referenced?
389:The reason for preparing this article
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
516:Is this a thesis or common knowlege?
319:. (edited after article revisions)
191:things which Knowledge (XXG) is not
76:The Knowledge Which No One Can Have
68:The Knowledge Which No One Can Have
24:
426:The questions to wikipedia are:
351:The article is on the topic of
247:and a bunch of other places. •
1:
711:The Indestructible Properties
827:03:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
798:18:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
775:19:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
752:05:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
728:16:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
701:05:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
674:04:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
653:22:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
632:03:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
614:16:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
590:03:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
561:11:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
535:03:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
462:10:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
418:09:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
370:23:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
347:10:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
329:10:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
305:16:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
292:15:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
274:13:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
252:12:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
224:09:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
206:12:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
62:13:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
355:with a particular focus on
863:
446:Is this article worthless?
357:A priori and a posteriori
260:: appears to be entirely
839:Please do not modify it.
709:I found another article,
32:Please do not modify it.
522:Is the title biased?
241:the Internet Archive
830:
813:comment added by
691:comment added by
593:
576:comment added by
421:
404:comment added by
262:original research
854:
841:
829:
807:
703:
592:
570:
420:
398:
184:
183:
169:
117:
99:
44:The result was
34:
862:
861:
857:
856:
855:
853:
852:
851:
850:
844:deletion review
837:
808:
720:Mercurywoodrose
716:User:Jeyamalini
686:
606:Mercurywoodrose
571:
399:
284:Mercurywoodrose
126:
90:
74:
71:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
860:
858:
849:
848:
832:
831:
815:Virginexplorer
800:
778:
777:
755:
754:
733:
732:
731:
730:
693:210.212.249.50
682:
681:
680:The last line:
677:
676:
656:
655:
637:
636:
635:
634:
624:Virginexplorer
617:
616:
597:
596:
595:
594:
578:Virginexplorer
564:
563:
527:Virginexplorer
520:
512:
510:
509:
505:
500:
499:
494:
493:
488:
487:
482:
481:
476:
475:
465:
464:
454:Virginexplorer
450:
447:
444:
441:
438:
435:
432:
424:
406:Virginexplorer
394:
393:
380:
379:
378:
377:
374:
373:
372:
339:Virginexplorer
332:
331:
309:
308:
307:
276:
237:Yahoo! Answers
229:
228:
227:
226:
216:Virginexplorer
187:
186:
123:
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
859:
847:
845:
840:
834:
833:
828:
824:
820:
816:
812:
804:
801:
799:
795:
791:
787:
783:
780:
779:
776:
772:
768:
764:
760:
757:
756:
753:
749:
745:
744:
738:
735:
734:
729:
725:
721:
717:
712:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
702:
698:
694:
690:
679:
678:
675:
671:
667:
666:
661:
660:Strong delete
658:
657:
654:
650:
646:
642:
639:
638:
633:
629:
625:
621:
620:
619:
618:
615:
611:
607:
602:
599:
598:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
568:
567:
566:
565:
562:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
539:
538:
537:
536:
532:
528:
523:
518:
517:
506:
502:
501:
496:
495:
490:
489:
484:
483:
478:
477:
472:
471:
470:
469:
463:
459:
455:
451:
448:
445:
442:
439:
436:
433:
430:
429:
428:
427:
422:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
390:
385:
382:
381:
375:
371:
367:
363:
358:
354:
350:
349:
348:
344:
340:
336:
335:
334:
333:
330:
326:
322:
318:
313:
310:
306:
303:
298:
295:
294:
293:
289:
285:
280:
279:Speedy Delete
277:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
256:
255:
254:
253:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
225:
221:
217:
212:
211:
210:
209:
208:
207:
204:
200:
196:
192:
182:
178:
175:
172:
168:
164:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
132:
129:
128:Find sources:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
838:
835:
802:
781:
758:
741:
736:
683:
663:
659:
643:per above.--
640:
600:
540:
521:
519:
515:
511:
467:
466:
425:
423:
395:
388:
383:
353:epistemology
311:
278:
257:
233:Uncyclopedia
230:
188:
176:
170:
162:
155:
149:
143:
137:
127:
45:
43:
31:
28:
809:—Preceding
687:—Preceding
572:—Preceding
400:—Preceding
362:Ben Kidwell
321:Ben Kidwell
153:free images
645:Epeefleche
790:The Anome
784:see also
767:The Anome
761:See also
266:The Anome
245:Wikibooks
54:The Anome
823:contribs
811:unsigned
782:Comment:
759:Comment:
689:unsigned
586:contribs
574:unsigned
553:Johnuniq
545:WP:SYNTH
414:contribs
402:unsigned
317:potatoes
120:View log
601:Comment
159:WP refs
147:scholar
93:protect
88:history
50:WP:SNOW
46:deleted
803:Delete
737:Delete
665:C.Fred
641:Delete
541:Delete
312:Delete
302:Anakin
258:Delete
249:Anakin
203:Anakin
199:WP:NOR
131:Google
97:delete
748:talk
549:WP:OR
174:JSTOR
135:books
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
819:talk
794:talk
771:talk
724:talk
697:talk
670:talk
649:talk
628:talk
610:talk
582:talk
557:talk
547:and
531:talk
458:talk
410:talk
384:Keep
366:talk
343:talk
325:talk
288:talk
270:talk
220:talk
197:and
195:WP:V
167:FENS
141:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
765:--
743:DGG
297:CSD
264:--
243:to
239:to
235:to
181:TWL
118:– (
52:--
825:)
821:•
796:)
773:)
750:)
726:)
699:)
672:)
651:)
630:)
612:)
588:)
584:•
559:)
533:)
460:)
416:)
412:•
368:)
345:)
327:)
290:)
272:)
222:)
214:--
161:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
817:(
792:(
769:(
746:(
722:(
695:(
668:(
647:(
626:(
608:(
580:(
555:(
529:(
456:(
408:(
364:(
341:(
323:(
286:(
268:(
218:(
185:)
177:·
171:·
163:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
138:·
133:(
125:(
122:)
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.