Welcome to the club. This is one of the things that makes writing hard; you can never read your own stuff quite as a reader sees it.
The Knox reference in the para starting with “In the vanishingly unlikely event...” is now even more jarring. But the part of that para referencing “the model” continues from the previous para, so rather than delete it I’d try to reword it.
Your “core” para is the one that contains the idea, “we are not stuck with the inferential powers of our ancestors” and goes on to discuss “epistemic technology”.
A typical good-writing suggestion is to find a way to move the key idea from where it is often found, buried in the middle of the article, to the very top. (Memorable quote which has helped me internalize this advice: “Your article is not a mystery novel. Don’t keep the reader guessing until the punchline.”)
I wouldn’t worry about “EDIT” marks, not in top level posts. Just accept that the discussion can reflect past versions, and make the post the best version you can.
Welcome to the club. This is one of the things that makes writing hard; you can never read your own stuff quite as a reader sees it.
The Knox reference in the para starting with “In the vanishingly unlikely event...” is now even more jarring. But the part of that para referencing “the model” continues from the previous para, so rather than delete it I’d try to reword it.
Your “core” para is the one that contains the idea, “we are not stuck with the inferential powers of our ancestors” and goes on to discuss “epistemic technology”.
A typical good-writing suggestion is to find a way to move the key idea from where it is often found, buried in the middle of the article, to the very top. (Memorable quote which has helped me internalize this advice: “Your article is not a mystery novel. Don’t keep the reader guessing until the punchline.”)
I wouldn’t worry about “EDIT” marks, not in top level posts. Just accept that the discussion can reflect past versions, and make the post the best version you can.