What is the order of pramāṇic validity on this site? [duplicate]

Question

First, what pramāṇa are acceptable? Second, if the claims of two proofs are inconsistent, which method should win out?

---

I know there are related questions in this Meta, but they are limited to one or a couple pramāṇa. I would like one definitive place which lists all acceptable proofs with their order of acceptability to reference in future.

---

Edit: My question isn't in reference to valid texts.

For Charvaka only Pratyakṣa was epistemologically valid; for Vaiśeṣika, Pratyakṣa & Anumāna; for Sankhya, Yoga, and earlier Vedānta schools Pratyakṣa, Anumāna, and Śabda are valid sources of knowledge; for Nyāya, Pratyakṣa, Anumāna, Śabda, and Upamāna; the Mīmāṃsā school added Arthapatti to the previous four; and for Advaita Vedānta Anupalabdi was added.

So, my question is which types of evidence does this SE consider epistemelogically valid and which take precedence over which?

Answer 1

First, what pramāṇa are acceptable?

When the site as a whole doesn't favor one one school of thought over others, how can it have a preference for a certain pramāṇa (e.g., śabda or pratyakṣa)?

So all pramāṇas are equally valid on this site.

Now if your question is:

• If a user answers a question from the vaiśeṣika perspective and uses a wrong pramāṇa, e.g., śabda, does the site care?

• If a vaiśeṣika gives more importance to anumāna than pratyakṣa, does the site care?

It does but it doesn't enforce. As as reader, you can point out the flaw in the comments under the answer and/or use voting.

Second, if the claims of two proofs are inconsistent, which method should win out?

Again, we decide that by voting. Do more votes mean the better answer? Not necessarily.

A note on pratyakṣa: You cannot use your own experience/personal testimony to make your case. You can always cite someone else's documented testimony.