The Scientific Method is the only way to gain Truth

The comment section was a discussion in which I might have to change the parameters of this debate. However before I could make those changes Ozzyhead accepted. Therefore he agreed to the parameters as is. First Rebuttals to CON's opening My opponent states "You cannot come to an accurate conclusion without the use of the scientific method in some form". I would prefer not to argue semantics, to prevent an enormous broadening of this term to include all truth seeking methods; I define the scientific method as a process that proceeds as such: Formulation of Question, Hypothesis, Prediction, Testing, Analysis [1][2] 1. My opponent asserts, "scientific method is the only reliable way to determine what is true" 2. My opponent asserts, "The scientific method is used everyday by the average person" 3. My opponent asserts, "Scientific method is used absolutely all the time" Rebuttal to #1:: Define reliable [3]: Consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted Define True [4]: In accordance with fact or reality Deductive reasoning links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true. [5] My first premise is that all human beings when cut open bleed red blood. My opponent, Ozzyhead, is a human being. Therefore if Ozzyhead is cut open they will bleed red blood. This is a strong argument and the premises are correct. The conclusion is valid and I am confident to 100% Ozzyhead will bleed red blood when cut open. This is a truth that I arrived at through reasoning and did not involve the Scientific Method. Making false the statement The Scientific Method is the only way to gain Truth. Rebuttal to #2:: In the previous example with the premise: All human beings when cut open bleed red blood. To scientifically verify this premise, Ozzyhead would have to Ask the question "Do all cut open humans bleed red blood?", compose a hypothesis "Yes when you cut open a human they bleed red blood", Then conduct a test. I'll stop there because the absurdity should be obvious. How many people has my opponent cut open? Was it a sufficient sample size to deduce it statistically applies to all humans alive today (6 billion)? I think it clear the test was never performed. It hasn't been performed and then peer reviewed. The test has not been performed by the average person. But the average person accepts the conclusion (all human beings bleed red blood). This is because truth of the matter did not come through the Scientific Method. It came through an alternate, equally reliable, method. Rebuttal to #3 Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. He states "A child is genetically pre-programmed to accumulate knowledge from figures of authority. The child brain, for very good Darwinian reasons, has to be set up in such a way that it believes what it"s told by its elders, because there just isn"t time for the child to experiment with warnings like "Don"t go too near the cliff edge!" or "Don"t swim in the river, there are crocodiles!" Any child who applied a SCIENTIFIC SKEPTICAL QUESTIONING ATTITUDE to that, would be DEAD" [6] Did you hear that! If my opponent is correct in "Scientific method is used absolutely all the time" we all would be DEAD. [1]Scientific Method http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [4] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org... [6]The Root of All Evil Part 2... time 15:15-15:30