Every question does not have an answer, but every answer has a question.

In case you missed the irony here, "I don't know" could be an answer to any question. Therefore, the question actually is begging the question that there are some questions that can't be answered. Once we demonstrate that any (non-multiple choice) question can be answered with an "I don't know" or similar, the question is moot.

That doesn't respond to the question, merely dismisses it. 

That was a serious question. The response is specious.

With all respect, the following statement is, to me, incoherent: "We just don't know what they are because  we are using the wrong system of logic (e.g. calculus vs algebra; inductive vs. deductive logic ) , frame of reference, or coordinate system for their analysis."  For example: who is "we?" All of mankind or a specific group of people? 

I think Dr Bo's comment is correct.

Dr Bill. I've attached a link to the question, and some answers that have been provided. However, when I sent in my question, I wasn't confused by the answers on Quora, but intrigued by the question itself. Unfortunately, as I re-read what I wrote, it could have been clearer. It also may not be a question of logic, and its use, but of general philosophy requiring the use of shadows on the wall of a cave. 

The point I was trying to get at is-- when we can't answer a question--is it because the question has no answer, or because we lack the physical and intellectual tools needed to answer it? For example, we could not have developed a germ theory of illness until after the development of the microscope. When Sir Isaac Newton was working on his theories of acceleration, velocity, and planetary motion, the existing tools of algebra and trigonometry were insufficient to describe and predict changes in mass, energy, and velocity over time , and he had to invent calculus to deal with action-reaction and acceleration problems. And where would the world of science be if we did not have the "tools" of deductive and inductive logic at our disposal to make and test hypotheses? Our experimental findings  would all be inconclusive, or as muddled as my original question.  Here is that link:    www.quora.com/For-every-a. . .

There are clear examples that some questions asked in the past lacked the language or knowledge to be answered at the time, but later were answered. From this, it does not follow that all questions currently unanswered simply lack language or knowledge to be answered. This is not even a reasonable inductive inference given the percentage of questions asked that fit in this category (I would imagine infinitely small).

The problem I alluded to before is that "answered" is ambiguous. "I don't know" is an answer. "I don't care" is an answer. There are incorrect answers to questions, there are answers where the "correctness" is on a continuum. There are poorly and ambiguously worded questions that can have many correct answers or no answers, depending on what is meant. There are unfalsifiable answers. The list goes on.