This is the case of the theory that to prove herself, takes elements belonging to a field outside his Studio. Theory alleging a biological evolution which has directly intervened Dios in passages of this least clarified, for example, is clearly pseudo-cientifica or a case of false theology. First and foremost, the attitude that Popper offers against science is well accepted. Which is an ascending knowledge towards the truth, which never reaches it but that tends toward her (Falsifiability). Therein lies the importance of search for experiments that belied a theory, to manufacture another closest to the truth. It must be borne in mind that if we were our whole life immersed in a mistake, we never reach the truth; not even us favours her. Why the attitude of the scientist has to be critical.

Popper checks off those theories or ideologies that are not only not desmentibles but also prevent it from pseudo-cientificas. Such is the case of Marxism or psychoanalysis of Freud. These theories that seek to explain everything, they don’t actually explain nothing. For example, Marx predicted that if wages decreased, it was because the capitalists were exploiting workers, and if they loomed, was because the capitalists were attempting to resurface, through a series of bribes, a system that appeared weakened. With these predictions, it is impossible to refute these theories Popper regarded, therefore, antiscientific and false, as well as dogmatic and not rational. Other (not rational and dogmatic) this same nature sciences are: Astrology, creationism, homeopathy, parapsychology, Numerology and ufology, among others.

Fair, on the opposite side is Einstein, whose attitude was considered by Popper as the true scientific attitude since Einstein was critical of his theory of relativity and offered crucial experiments that could disprove it. On the other hand the study of science does not correspond with the development of this. This is subject to economic interests and together with the technique, used in away from science fields (for example, the use of nuclear energy, whose principles are based on scientific discoveries, has come to be used for military purposes). So it is important that the attitude of the scientist is to contribute to knowledge and the promote the study of the science in question, along with others that offer support to not move away from his human purpose (Bioethics, for example) which is to reach the truth. We came to the conclusion that the scientific arguments are distinguished from the pseudo-cientificos by the use of a particular criterion of demarcation. Once this is established, we can easily know whether or not science. Really difficult, and perhaps impossible, is to establish a genuine criterion of demarcation, i.e., mark the boundaries of science. Anyway, science works and proof of this is the practical use that is made of their findings through technology. It should not be forgotten that science is a knowledge that seeks the truth. In addition, it seems that it is the most reliable and safe. By that, everyone who cares about fostering their scientific knowledge is directing in any way toward the truth or a part of it. There are knowledges which enjoy the title of science since decidedly lead toward truth; others, of the pseudo-ciencia, perhaps because his journey towards truth is somewhat mysterious and away from rationality. These knowledge areas are waiting to be accepted by science, as if the pseudo-ciencia is a step prior to this inside stairs that climb toward the truth.