There's nothing false about a tautology, it just doesn't entail any implications that aren't in the original statement. (e.g. (A or ~A) implies {} ) If we knew everything about the empirical world, our body of knowledge would be tautologus by definition. If the original statement is not founded on correct knowledge about the empirical world, the tautology is vacuous, but not false.
So saying RM&NS is a tautology doesn't make it false or keep it from being a framework for doing science, it just means that it doesn't add anything to our body of knowledge without further field and lab work.
-Neil
[This message has been edited by NeilUnreal, 07-21-2003]
™ Version 4.2
