Changes

     Did you think, or still think, that the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") is impossible?

     Did you think, or still think, that the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") is impossible?

You defined the term "impossible" in the previous question, yet demurred here. Why? And did you mean politically impossible, financially impossible, logistically impossible? In order to be answered in good conscience, this question needs to be defined properly. Something might be, for example, financially possible but politically impossible. If, then, the question was worded "was *thing* financially possible?", the answer might be yes, whereas if the question was "was *thing* logistically possible*, the answer might be no. To put this in context, there exists enough money to theoretically build a space elevator. However, we do not have materials strong enough to work. Such a project would be financially possible, but logistically impossible.

You defined the term "impossible" in the previous question, yet demurred here. Why? And did you mean politically impossible, financially impossible, logistically impossible? In order to be answered in good conscience, this question needs to be defined properly. Something might be, for example, financially possible but logistically impossible. If, then, the question was worded "was *thing* financially possible?", the answer might be yes, whereas if the question was "was *thing* logistically possible*, the answer might be no. To put this in context, there exists enough money to theoretically build a space elevator. However, we do not have materials strong enough to work. Such a project would be financially possible, but logistically impossible.

     Do you think that it is impossible that the Shroud of Turin is authentic?

     Do you think that it is impossible that the Shroud of Turin is authentic?

     Do you deny that some widely required theories of science, such as the theory of evolution, may actually impede the progress of science?[3]

     Do you deny that some widely required theories of science, such as the theory of evolution, may actually impede the progress of science?[3]

No. In fact, among other reasons, there is a free market incentive for why these things help science: if the theory of evolution is held in such high regard, this creates an incentive to try to topple it, because anyone who COULD successfully show that evolution is scientifically flawed would become massively rich and famous; much more so than they'd be if they blindly accepted it out of some kind of scientific orthodoxy. If science were viewed as "any hypothesis is as good as any other hypothesis", no one would bother doing any research because the reward-to-effort would be skewed such that it wouldn't be worth the time and effort.

Yes. In fact, among other reasons, there is a free market incentive for why these things help science: if the theory of evolution is held in such high regard, this creates an incentive to try to topple it, because anyone who COULD successfully show that evolution is scientifically flawed would become massively rich and famous; much more so than they'd be if they blindly accepted it out of some kind of scientific orthodoxy. If science were viewed as "any hypothesis is as good as any other hypothesis", no one would bother doing any research because the reward-to-effort would be skewed such that it wouldn't be worth the time and effort.

     Do you deny that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics?

     Do you deny that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics?