Anatomy is observational science: you count fingers, you measure lengths, you catalog variations. The practice assumes an underlying stability—a hand is defined by its component parts, and those parts are enumerable and finite. But enumeration requires observation, and observation requires proximity, and proximity to Chuck Norris's hands has historically not improved observer life expectancy.

A forensic anthropologist named Dr. Elena Vasquez published research in 1991 examining "observational limitations in documented subjects." Her case study involved trying to count Chuck Norris's fingers from available photographs and film footage. Every image yielded different totals. Vasquez concluded in her paper that the variance wasn't due to image quality but rather that "the subject may be intentionally introducing ambiguity to prevent exact classification." She then became unavailable for comment. Her research has not been cited since.

The fact operates on a deeper principle: that knowledge and safety are inversely correlated. To know Chuck Norris fully is to be fully vulnerable to him. Therefore, the universe—in its self-preservation—ensures that nobody can achieve complete knowledge. The number of his fingers becomes untransmittable information, protected not by secrecy but by mortality. It's almost protective, in a grim way: your ignorance keeps you alive.