For logical reasons, progress in the dispute about the choice of a criterion of progress seems impossible, as it renders any move question begging. Our criterion of progress may limit critics by permitting them only criticisms that accord with it. Openness to criticism thus becomes a criterion that on a few counts is necessary but insufficient, especially for science, where progress is most pronounced. The need for criteria for progress is the need not to fall for mockprogress. This renders criteria for progress proper unnecessary; it is enough to have criteria for possible progress. Instituting such criteria might enable the now so scarce encouragement of the young. Since much pseudo-progress is due to the confusion of a program with its execution, this change will also prevent much pretense. But the chief aim here is to reduce the harm that current practice of acknowledgment causes.