ContextIn the modern, highly specialized technological world, scientists are rarely aware of the work of philosophers; it is practically unprecedented to see them line up, as they did in the case of Popper, to swear to the great practical and beneficial influence that this philosophical work had on them (1). In his article he began with the following: "The problem that troubled me at the time was not 'When is a theory true?' nor: “When is a theory acceptable?” My problem was different: I wanted to distinguish science and pseudo-science; knowing full well that science is often wrong and that pseudo-science can stumble upon the truth”(2) Karl considers the empirical method of observations resulting from a test or series of tests to endorse a theory and l The analysis of the results (empirical method) is not acceptable. As an alternative, he recommended the following: "I have often formulated my problem as that of distinguishing between a truly empirical method and a non-empirical or even pseudo-empirical method, that is, a method which, although it calls for observation. and experiment” (2) He established that the main problem of the philosophy of science is that of demarcation, that is to say the distinction between science and what he calls “non-science”. Karl Popper summarized his ideas in seven points as follows:1. It is easy to obtain confirmation, or verification, for almost any theory – if we look for confirmation.2. Confirmations should only count if they are the result of risky predictions3. Any “good” scientific theory is a prohibition: it prohibits certain things from happening.4. A theory that is not refutable by any imaginable event is not scientific.5. Every g...... middle of an article...... and no observation is free from the possibility of error.6- Karl Popper considered that scientific logic is deductive logic. therefore all scientific theories are tested by trying to falsify them. To do this, scientists deduce predictions from theories and if the predictions turn out to be false, then deductive logic dictates that the theory is false. If the predictions turn out to be true, then the theory is not proven, it just means it is a corroboration of that theory. admirers of certain theories, to save the theory from refutation, tried to save their theory, by introducing an auxiliary hypothesis, or by reinterpreting the theory in such a way that it escapes refutation, but they destroyed or at least lowered its scientific status. (2).