The main question that we have to answer in dealing with the paper by Panchin et al. is "Is the hypothesis presented in this manuscript a scientific hypothesis?" Answering such a question would require an unambiguous answer to the question "What is a scientific hypothesis?" Unfortunately, many answers (some contradictory) have been provided by scientists and philosophers of science alike.
"Yes" or "no" questions usually produce more satisfying results than questions that would require a long-winded answer.
Among the 46 questions that the bill would require a home seller to answer -- "to the best of your knowledge" -- are whether the property was ever part of a landfill or a designated wetland, whether it had fuel tanks above or below ground, and whether it had asbestos in its structure or lead plumbing.
An authoritative answer would require a complete theory of quantum gravity, which has not yet been developed (cf. the section on quantum gravity, below).
Of course it was nothing personal, Godard replied, and in any case a proper answer would require a detailed, shot-by-shot analysis of Spielberg's movies, for which there was, alas, insufficient time.
To explore these questions and concoct answers would require a short novel.
To get to those answers would require a serious and well-funded investigation by the state.
This asymmetry also raises evolutionary questions about the optimal deployment of defences and why the SA pathway is maintained, but complete answers would require a full investigation of the costs and specificity of the two pathways.
Thus, unlike, say, cholera or the Zika virus, there is no "scientific" answer to the question, "how many guns should there be?" Such an answer, if it existed, would require a cost-benefit analysis, something that doctors are ill-equipped to do.
We can't be sure the extent to which this is the fault of Facebook's algorithms or the fault of how people organize themselves; to answer that would require a lot more data than Facebook would ever divulge.
