Most people think that logic is a perfect way to understanding. Godel proved that logic has limitations. In the 1930s, Austrian mathematician Godel proved a theorem which became the "Godel theorem" in cognition theory. It states that any formalized 'logical' system in principle cannot be complete in itself. It means that a statement can always be found that can be neither disproved nor proved using the means of that particular system. To discuss about such a statement, one must go beyond that very logic system; otherwise nothing but a vicious circle will result. Psychologists say that any experience is contingent - it's opposite is logically possible and hence should not be treated as contradictory. http://www.exploratorium.edu/complexity/CompLexicon/godel.html Ask any experienced lawyer. He will tell the same from his experience. The implication of Godel's incompleteness theorem is that the truth about anything in creation is incomplete as far as human understanding is concerned. Any symbolism that has evolved from man's desire to understand himself and his function within the universe must invariably reflect the laws of nature. Henri Bergson defined intuition as instinct that is capable of reflecting upon its object and of enlarging it indefinitely. Only by intuition, he declared, can the absolute be comprehended. The Upanisads say that every thing in creation is unique. Even small things like germs or sand particles are microcosms. No person can have the complete knowledge to understand every aspect of even such simple things. The Upanishads say that truth has infinite number of dimentions. The more you know about something, the more you will come to know that there is more to know.

For me Mathematics is no more than a language with its own limitations. To me Godel's incompleteness theorem was another indicator that mathematics is inadequate to describe life. The proof may be right or wrong. So what? Still mathematics is essentially inadequate to describe life. More in my site http://www.what-is-cancer.com/papers/contents/compFrame.htm

Why should anyone care what a philosopher thinks about a problem in mathematics? Would you give any weight to a mathematician's opinion about a new technique in brain surgery?