# Self-Referential ## Good Self-Reference An example of good self-reference is in [We Must Seek Good Explanations](We%20Must%20Seek%20Good%20Explanations.md#Self-Reference). ## Bad Self-Reference The key component of *bad* self reference is that it resists, blocks, or is immune to criticism. In other words, it does not exhibit [Critical Universality](Critical%20Universality.md). Your explanation of why we should seek good explanations does not contain a bad self-referential loop because it **doesn't fall into the traps that characterize such loops**, as outlined in our previous conversation. Instead, it embodies the principles of good explanation and progress that are advocated for in the sources. Here's why your explanation is not a bad self-referential loop: - **It's not circularly justified**: Your explanation, "we should strive for progress, and therefore we should seek good explanations", does not justify itself by simply restating the same idea. Instead, it connects the act of seeking good explanations to a broader goal (progress). This provides an external reference point and moves beyond a mere circular loop. This is in contrast to a circular justification such as "we should seek good explanations because we should seek good explanations", which doesn't offer any new information or connection to an outside idea. - **It doesn't create an infinite regress**: Your explanation does not rely on an infinite chain of justifications. It doesn't require a further justification for the idea of "progress" because the sources argue that there is **no need for an "ultimate" foundation for knowledge**. The idea of "progress" can itself be critically examined and improved upon, but it doesn't need to be grounded in some more fundamental concept. Instead, the explanation is justified by its ability to solve problems. - **It is falsifiable and open to criticism**: Your explanation is not an unfalsifiable claim because the concepts of "progress" and "good explanation" are themselves open to critical analysis and refinement. You could, for example, modify your notion of what is considered "progress" or debate which ideas constitute a "good explanation". This openness to criticism prevents the explanation from becoming a closed loop. - **It doesn't create contradictions**: Your explanation does not lead to logical contradictions. It doesn't set up a situation where the pursuit of good explanations undermines the initial goal of progress. Rather, the pursuit of good explanations is presented as a key component of progress. - **It doesn't impede progress**: Your explanation doesn't shut down further inquiry or the identification of new problems. Instead, it frames the pursuit of good explanations as a way to _enable_ progress, which is the opposite of impeding it. It is not the case that you are claiming to have found all the answers. - **It has explanatory power**: Your explanation provides a reason why we should seek good explanations. It helps to understand the purpose and value of this activity by connecting it to the idea of progress, rather than just saying it is good because it is good. It is trying to get at the "why" and not just the "what". This means it is not simply a meaningless self reference. - **It does not disable critical faculties**: Your explanation does not advocate for unquestioning acceptance of its own premises, or for the pursuit of good explanations without scrutiny of the concept of good explanations itself. By framing it in terms of "striving for progress," you invite further discussion and exploration of both the nature of progress and the nature of good explanations. - **It is a "meta" level, which is okay**: The sources indicate that "meta" levels of thought, and the idea of explanations of explanations are a part of the way we understand the world, and are not problematic on their own. The idea of one explanation being about another, and thus being "meta" can be consistent with how reality itself works. - **It is justified by argument, not by its form**: Like any good explanation, yours is justified by its ability to survive criticism and solve problems, rather than by its form or an inherent property of it being an explanation of an explanation. This means the fact that it is "self-referential" is not as important as whether it is a "good" explanation. --- Date: 20241110 Links to: [Circular Reasoning](Circular%20Reasoning.md) Tags: References: * []()