Let us deconstruct the argument we've been given, and it seems painfully clear we must revisit it once again. Please reflect on the statement given
to us by Mr. Kano -- "The Scientific Method is always Applicable in explaining what we Observe".
The "always" aspect is been neglected in the response of my opponent.
Let us consider what is not "always" describable by the "scientific method".
(Allow poor Winston another dramatic pause. You may swallow if you wish.)
Nothing has caused more confusion, strife, error, and anguish throughout history than our emotions. Songs have been written, poems penned, books
published, psychologists analyze, and in the end, this attribute of our every day lives defies description by anything other than itself. The
observance of emotion is only describable by additional displays of emotion!
And we need not generalize emotion to uncover a specific example germane to our task. The recognition of beauty in another of our species is an aspect
of our emotions that is so broad with wide variance, that no method of science can ever hope to describe it, much less quantify the range of
Take, for example, this fine photo from the Smithsonian's National Museum of African Art:
The photographer, Elliot Elisofon, has capture an African woman at the peak of her elegance and beauty.
What a fine picture of an obviously wonderful woman. However, the vast majority of cultures on this planet will not see the grace and beauty of this
woman in that picture. And, the men of this woman's culture would find extreme distaste in the photos of women our western culture feels are
Now we can certainly, through science, attribute this effect to the variance of cultural influence on beauty. But it is impossible to measure,
quantify, and predict this effect with the scientific method. We see this in our own society today with men and women who inexplicably prefer rotund
members of the opposite sex, despite all the contrary clues and mores our society has imposed.
And here we have it my fine readers and judges, one very simple, very easy to follow explanation of how the scientific method is unable to explain
this every-day observance, which is a deep part of who we are, and who we have been for centuries.
Despite the attempt at simplicity from my opponent, he has not offered any argument other than to simply repeat, over and over again, the process of
the scientific method, in the hopes that by simply overstating it, it will become absolute. It will not, and cannot.