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.
Sorry, I don't understand your rephrasing. Must be the inference gap between a philosopher and a scientist.
Another month has passed and here is a new rationality quotes thread. The usual rules are: