OK, here's my quarter, I'll take a shot. As stated, the proposition is ambiguous. The proposition could be an empirical (scientific) claim or it could be a transcendental claim. In the former case, it makes sense to investigate whether any particular man has never died. I assume interviewing techniques and documentary analysis would be relevant research methodologies. Inquiry, the search for truth, is here the search for a contingent fact. In the latter case, the claim says that if you find some entity that is mortal, it's not possible for that entity to be a man. As a transcendental claim, it expresses a universal and necessary truth; being outside the realm of contingency it entails that no empirical inquiry is required, or possible. Did I win? (Consolation prizes also gratefully accepted.) Walter O. MUN Quoting Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > Actually the question as previously asked is falsifiable. The question should > have been "Is 'All men are immortal' unscientific?" as per above. > > Throw in the questions "Is 'All men are fallible' scientific?" and "Is 'All > men are infallible' scientific?", and answer the second "Not on the evidence > of Donal's first attempt at a subject heading", if you feel like it (though > actually it is scientific, just false). > > Donal > Not for nothing a fallibilist in the theory of knowledge > > > > > __________________________________________________________ > Sent from Yahoo! Mail. > The World's Favourite Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html > ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html