I felt I was quite explicit on this. I said that sometimes if things go A necessary for and prior to be B necessary for and prior to C then we don’t know whether A causes C, B causes C or A and B cause C together (or none of these, I guess). I think we agree that first hand knowledge is necessary for and prior to second hand knowledge which is necessary for and prior to consensus. I think this is a case where both A and B cause C, so I don’t think there is any point in privileging A over B just because it is prior or necessary for.
Priority != importance is all I was trying to say. If we agree that priority is not importance, then we are we discussing priority?
