Changes

The suggestion is to opt for the first option, as it seems the lesser of two evils. One consideration in support of this option, is that the procedure of limiting the scope is ubiquitous in many other fields of inquiry; thus, there is nothing inherently vicious in excluding certain non-epistemic phenomena (such as element decay) from the scope of our discipline. Also, a parallel can be drawn between the scientonomic first law and Newton’s first law: while the latter too has been considered tautological, not many have thought that it is necessarily a serious problem. Thus, the tautological nature of our first law is not inevitably problematic.

|Modification=

|Automatic=No

|Verdict=Open