Science Cannot Explain Happiness

Thanks for accepting Pro. I maintain that science can explain happiness. According to an NCBI study called "The Functional Neuroanatomy of Pleasure and Happiness," Neurology can explain happiness "by measuring brain activity correlated to a pleasant stimulus, using human neuroimaging techniques, or electrophysiological or neurochemical activation measures in animals...a change in pleasure as a consequence of a brain manipulation such as a lesion or stimulation." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Furthermore, "a set of interacting brain regions commonly involved in basic psychological operations of both an emotional and non-emotional nature are active during emotion experience and perception across a range of discrete emotion categories." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Let me paraphrase. We know from experimenting on human and other mammal brains, that our brains, with the help of nerve cells, produce our experience of happiness. This is easily explained by the neurosciences. Neurology also explains, "the monoamines serotonin, dopamine and noradrenaline have a great impact on mood, emotion and behavior." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... From neurological tests performed on humans and other mammals, we know that there are four basic neurochemicals that generate happiness in humans, and it would seem in other mammals as well. They are: endorphins, oxytocin, dopamine, and serotonin. These chemicals are exclusively used by the human brain to produce our happiness state. Simply, happiness is explained scientifically by the brain's inner-workings. On to Pro's arguments... Pro makes some bald assertions: "Systematic knowledge is a knowledge that has a fix point." My response: Nope. While our systematic knowledge is concrete, it is subject to change with new, valid evidence. It is not fixed for this reason. Though gravity seems fixed, it doesn't mean that our knowledge of it must be...new evidence changes our knowledge. Pro brings up statistic Canada: "so far all study that are conducted to get some reading of happiness are all opinions base of survey done with random volunteers." My response: Yep, that's why I provided opinion-less data on objective brain chemistry/behavior that determines happiness. Pro claims: "happiness does make us to react certain ways, but the same reaction can also be mistaken for other emotions. for an example, when i see green it makes me feel happy. but you can not see this, it can not be seen." My response: Right, but happiness's effects can be detected by neuroimaging, and this imaging directly corresponds to the production of neurochemicals, as provided in my sources. Pro continues: "happiness can only be notice base on the physical change of a person's face or action" My response: Nope. Happiness can also be detected by brain chemicals/activity. I don't see why the fact that emotions change keeps emotions out of the explanatory realm of science. Science explains lots of things that change, like bones growing, organisms evolving, and chemical reactions that produce changed compounds. Pro gives an example: "today i can love a girl, the next day i can hate her" My response: Today your dopamine increases, the next day your dopamine decreases...explained. Pro asks: "remember the [main] purpose behind experimenting?" My response: Yes. To develop our changing knowledge on particular subjects. We've experimented in great detail the cooperation of the human brain and the emotions we exhibit. I reject the resolution, because neuroscience in particular can explain happiness.