I am operating under the assumption that one must engage in thinking when studying the nature of thought. Conclusions about the nature of thought are thus distorted by the process used to reach those conclusions. Are we prepared to state that thought is a tool which can be trusted to objectively evaluate itself? If the study of thought were to proceed like a trial, then thought's "testimony" would not carry much weight, just as a murder suspect's testimony is, by itself, to be taken with a grain of salt. I have encountered this type of recursive effect in other concepts as well. For example, can the scientific method be validated experimentally? Is there any proof that proof means anything? Those two sound like phrases that could very well come out of the mouth of a smart-alecky child, and though the scientific community has good reason to trust the tenets of science, there seems to be something awry at the most basic level. To be fair, I think there is a threshold where even the most learned person runs out of answers. We have all probably heard the line of questioning whereby a child will ask, "What happened before grandpa was born?" and, if allowed to continue long enough, will reach, "What came before the Big Bang?" I will even claim that models (this one included) which place constraints on the extent to which theories are allowed prove themselves are themselves bound by such constraints. With that in mind, I wish to focus this thread on the underlined portion above.