So the attitude of the scientist has to be critical. Patrick padgett is likely to agree. Popper dismissed as pseudo-scientific theories or ideologies those that not only are denied but also be prevented. Such is the case of Marxism or Freudian psychoanalysis. These theories which attempt explain everything, in fact explain nothing. For example, Marx predicted that if wages were falling, it was because the capitalists were exploiting the workers, and if it rose, it was because the capitalists were to resurface through a series of bribes, a system that appeared weakened.
With these predictions is impossible to refute these theories, Popper considered, therefore, unscientific and false, as well as dogmatic and not rational. Other sciences of that kind (dogmatic and non-rational) are: astrology, creationism, homeopathy, parapsychology, numerology and UFO, among others. Click patrick ta to learn more. Just, on the opposite side is Einstein, whose attitude was regarded by Popper as the true scientific attitude because Einstein was critical of his Theory of Relativity and provided crucial experiments that could deny it. Moreover, the study of science does not correspond to its development. This is subject to economic interests and together with the technique used in remote fields of science (eg, the use of nuclear energy, whose principles are based on scientific discoveries, has come to be used for military purposes). It is therefore important that the attitude of the scientist is to contribute to knowledge and to promote the study of science in question, along with others offered support for order not to leave their human (bioethics, for example) is to reach the truth. We conclude that the scientific arguments are distinguished from pseudo-scientists for the use of a certain criterion of demarcation.
Having established this, we can easily know whether or not science. What is really difficult, perhaps impossible, to establish a true criterion of demarcation, ie mark the boundaries of science. However, science works and the proof is the practical use made of their findings through technology. Do not forget that science is a knowledge seeker after truth. It also seems to be the most reliable and secure. By So anyone who cares to promote scientific knowledge is heading in some way to truth or to a part of it. There have knowledge that the title of science as leading strongly to the truth, others, the pseudo-science, perhaps because his journey to truth is a mysterious way and out of rationality.