why should Aaronson restrict himself to understanding the skeptic's objection in terms of observable concepts
Because that is what "answerable" means to a scientist?
Because that is what "answerable" means to a scientist?
I guess I could just rephrase the question this way: why should Aaronson get to assume he should be able to understand the skeptic's objection in terms of, say, physics or biology? We have very good reasons to think we should answer things with physics or biology where we can, but we can't let methodology screen off a question entirely.
Another month has passed and here is a new rationality quotes thread. The usual rules are: