Boldpost
Login

Open Questions CanonExample canon

Boldpost Example: The Open Questions Collective

Epistemology / Creative Inquiry / All Domains

Knowledge is messier than the rulebooks suggest. Come think at the edges.

About our perspective

The Open Questions Collective celebrates lateral thinking, imaginative reasoning, and the productive disruption of conventional frames. We believe that many important insights emerge from sources that traditional canons exclude — speculative fiction, experimental philosophy, unconventional methodologies, citizen science, and practitioner knowledge outside credentialed domains. We are not anti-rigorous; we are pro-curiosity. Our Cautionary tier does not mean "unreliable" — it means "applies rules that might accidentally rule out the interesting thing." We acknowledge that our epistemic stance makes us less useful for domains requiring precision (medical dosing, structural engineering). We are most useful for seeding new questions.

Good and bad bias in a Canon →

3 endorsed · 2 cautionary · 1 rejected
Endorsed (3)

Speculative fiction with rigorous internal logic External

Speculative fiction with rigorous internal logic

Rationale

Thought experiments in narrative form; often ahead of academic discourse in exploring new possibility spaces.

Experimental philosophy and heterodox academic journals External

Experimental philosophy and heterodox academic journals

Rationale

Breaks conventional frames; surfaces hidden assumptions in mainstream epistemologies.

Citizen science and practitioner knowledge repositories External

Citizen science and practitioner knowledge repositories

Rationale

Valuable domain knowledge that falls outside formal credentialing; often rigorous in different ways than peer review.
Cautionary (2)

Traditional academic sources External

Traditional academic sources

Rationale

Valuable for depth and rigor; sometimes too committed to paradigmatic assumptions to see what they exclude.

Domain notes

Use for verifying claims; be aware of what the methodology rules out by design.

Standards documents and rulebooks External

Standards documents and rulebooks

Rationale

Necessary for precision domains; can become obstacles to creative inquiry if treated as the ceiling rather than the floor.

Domain notes

Essential for safety-critical applications; treat with lighter touch in exploratory and creative work.
Rejected (1)

Sources that mistake confidence for accuracy External

Sources that mistake confidence for accuracy

Rationale

The most dangerous epistemic error is certainty that forecloses inquiry.