A traditional conception of a law of nature views a hypothesis holds necessarily when it takes the logical form:
(P1) All A's are B's
(P2) O is an A
(C) Therefore O is a B.
The large number of external inputs to models proposed in the social sciences often leads to situations where P1 and P2 are true, but C is false. Thus theorists have proposed that laws in the social sciences should be qualified with a ceteris paribus clause (all other things being equal). An objection to this strategy suggests that this leads to a tautology of the form:
All A's are B's, unless not.
My question is: how can one respond to this objection?