Other historians find incongruity in the proposition that the very place where the vast number of the scholars that influenced the scientific revolution received their education should also be the place that inhibits their research and the advancement of science. In fact, more than 80% of the European scientists between 1450–1650 included in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography were university trained, of which approximately 45% held university posts. It was the case that the academic foundations remaining from the Middle Ages were stable, and they did provide for an environment that fostered considerable growth and development. There was considerable reluctance on the part of universities to relinquish the symmetry and comprehensiveness provided by the Aristotelian system, which was effective as a coherent system for understanding and interpreting the world. However, university professors still utilized some autonomy, at least in the sciences, to choose epistemological foundations and methods. For instance, Melanchthon and his disciples at University of Wittenberg were instrumental for integrating Copernican mathematical constructs into astronomical debate and instruction. Another example was the short-lived but fairly rapid adoption of Cartesian epistemology and methodology in European universities, and the debates surrounding that adoption, which led to more mechanistic approaches to scientific problems as well as demonstrated an openness to change. There are many examples which belie the commonly perceived intransigence of universities. Although universities may have been slow to accept new sciences and methodologies as they emerged, when they did accept new ideas it helped to convey legitimacy and respectability, and supported the scientific changes through providing a stable environment for instruction and material resources.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): On the part of universities what was their reaction to giving up the Aristotelian system?
Ah, so.. considerable reluctance

"Poultry" is a term used for any kind of domesticated bird, captive-raised for its utility, and traditionally the word has been used to refer to wildfowl (Galliformes) and waterfowl (Anseriformes). "Poultry" can be defined as domestic fowls, including chickens, turkeys, geese and ducks, raised for the production of meat or eggs and the word is also used for the flesh of these birds used as food. The Encyclopædia Britannica lists the same bird groups but also includes guinea fowl and squabs (young pigeons). In R. D. Crawford's Poultry breeding and genetics, squabs are omitted but Japanese quail and common pheasant are added to the list, the latter frequently being bred in captivity and released into the wild. In his 1848 classic book on poultry, Ornamental and Domestic Poultry: Their History, and Management, Edmund Dixon included chapters on the peafowl, guinea fowl, mute swan, turkey, various types of geese, the muscovy duck, other ducks and all types of chickens including bantams. In colloquial speech, the term "fowl" is often used near-synonymously with "domesticated chicken" (Gallus gallus), or with "poultry" or even just "bird", and many languages do not distinguish between "poultry" and "fowl". Both words are also used for the flesh of these birds. Poultry can be distinguished from "game", defined as wild birds or mammals hunted for food or sport, a word also used to describe the flesh of these when eaten.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): What is the Japanese term for "domesticated chicken?"
Ah, so.. unanswerable

Vacuum is space void of matter. The word stems from the Latin adjective vacuus for "vacant" or "void". An approximation to such vacuum is a region with a gaseous pressure much less than atmospheric pressure. Physicists often discuss ideal test results that would occur in a perfect vacuum, which they sometimes simply call "vacuum" or free space, and use the term partial vacuum to refer to an actual imperfect vacuum as one might have in a laboratory or in space. In engineering and applied physics on the other hand, vacuum refers to any space in which the pressure is lower than atmospheric pressure. The Latin term in vacuo is used to describe an object as being in what would otherwise be a vacuum.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): What is the definition of atmospheric pressure?
Ah, so..
unanswerable