Policy on Precedence and Contradictions
Resolving Apparent Conflicts by Evolving Our Understanding
As our understanding deepens, newer articles inevitably supersede previous entries. For instance, "The Dialectic Catalyst" refines and partially revises the definition presented in "The Dialectic Agent." Similarly, while "Defending Bayes, Part 2" suggested Bayesian credence was exclusively about quantifying timeline uncertainty, "Defending Bayes, Part 5" acknowledged three additional valid forms of credence.
In keeping with our philosophical frameworks—Conditionalism, the Quantum Branching Universe (QBU) model, and Evolutionary Epistemology—this blog explicitly adopts the following policy regarding contradictions or apparent conflicts among entries:
Policy Statement:
When contradictions or conflicts emerge between earlier and later entries on this blog, later entries explicitly supersede and take precedence over earlier entries.
Rationale:
This policy embodies our commitment to a continually evolving epistemology, where knowledge progresses through explicit iteration and refinement:
Conditionalism asserts that all truths depend on background conditions and assumptions. Changes in conditions, assumptions, or interpretations naturally lead to shifts in our stated positions.
The Quantum Branching Universe (QBU) framework highlights how each new blog entry represents a distinct intellectual vantage point. Later entries, having considered additional branches (possibilities, information, and refinements), represent a more complete, updated Measure of our evolving understanding.
Evolutionary Epistemology embraces intellectual contradictions as natural outcomes of iterative variation and selection processes. Contradictions signal genuine growth, self-criticism, and the incorporation of new insights.
Practical Implications:
Readers encountering contradictions are encouraged to prioritize later posts.
Older entries remain valuable historical records of the intellectual evolution of ideas and theories.
Posts explicitly marked "Foundational" or "Canonical" require an equally explicit statement to be superseded.
By transparently adopting this policy, we reinforce intellectual rigor, authenticity, and our dedication to continual philosophical and theoretical advancement.