<p>Current scholarship on Dynamic Capabilities (DC) is bifurcated into two dominant streams: a contingency perspective, primarily associated with Eisenhardt, which distinguishes Ordinary Capabilities (OC) from DC based on environmental velocity; and a strategic management perspective, championed by Teece, which posits a hierarchical relationship between the two. However, Helfat and Winter have challenged this dichotomy, arguing that epistemologically distinguishing OC from DC is problematic, thereby creating a theoretical impasse. To address this stagnation, this paper employs a metascientific framework to advance two core arguments: (1) that Teece’s hierarchical distinction is not merely structural but a logical necessity, and (2) that this hierarchy is fundamental to organizational learning and growth. Specifically, drawing on Alfred Tarski’s semantic theory of truth, we demonstrate that separating OC (object-level execution) from DC (meta-level evaluation) is essential to prevent self-referential paradoxes. Blurring this distinction paralyzes the evaluative function, inducing organizational dysfunction and strategic blind spots.　Second, drawing on Karl Popper’s theory of the growth of knowledge, we elucidate how this hierarchical architecture constitutes the fundamental engine of sustained corporate evolution. Within this framework, DC functions as a "plastic control system" that rigorously interrogates "tentative theories" (manifested as existing business models or OCs), thereby identifying and eliminating errors. This critical feedback loop propels organizations beyond the confines of single-loop learning into the transformative realm of double-loop learning. Ultimately, this paper not only resolves the prevailing theoretical schism within DC scholarship but also reconstructs the concept of dynamic capabilities: elevating it from a mere taxonomic distinction to a core mechanism of organizational evolution, grounded in a robust philosophical foundation.</p>