Twentieth century philosopher Karl Popper wanted to give a new example into how scientists at this time were thinking about the world. He observed the different methods that scientists such as Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein were using. Popper came to the understanding that not all scientific achievement was created equal. He began to make a distinction between science itself and what he called pseudoscience in what he likes to call demarcation criterion. It could be said that Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein made predictions to help us have a better understanding of the world. Freud was concerned with the psyche of an individual in which he predicted that our childhood experiences would have a bearing effect on who we grew up to become. Meanwhile, Einstein was focused on his Theory of Relativity, how light travels through space. Karl Popper observed these predictions and he learned that the psychoanalytic theories of Freud and about the rules of the universe. Popper noticed that both used different methods in their thinking. Popper saw that Freud was able to make any data point work in favour of his theory. Freud could explain a intimacy issues that a person faced, for example, not being hugged enough vs being hugged too much. Popper noticed that Einstein was using different methods to Freud to predict his theories. Instead of referring to the past and using it to predict the present, Einstein looked into the future and predicted the future states. Popper acknowledged that Einstein’s theory was risky as if what occurred in the future did not match the predictions then the theory could be conclusively disproved. Popper drew a distinction between Freud’s and Einstein’s science in which he then referred to this distinction as pseudoscience. Up until the twentieth century”,modern philosophers had not characterised what science specifically is. The traditional ancient interpretation of science is that when you look you see what you see and develop a hypothesis based on the observations you have made. You see a swan and it is white, you see another swan which is also white and all the other swans you see are all white too. You form a hypothesis all swans are white. This is much like what Freud was doing, observing relationships and forming a hypothesis. Popper argued that everyone has preconceived notions as when you observe something you already care about enough to observe and as you already care about it you already hold some beliefs about it. For example the existence of Jesus. I try to find every piece of evidence I can of his existence. I would be able to find it easily as the world is full of evidence of Jesus’ which would confirm my belief of Jesus. Popper argues that it’s only by seeking to disapprove Jesus’ existence that you could demonstrate his unreality. Science would disconfirm this whereas, pseudoscience would confirm this theory. Popper said it’s easy to find confirmation of a theory is you are specifically looking for it such as looking for evidence of Jesus which confirms you’re belief and secondly confirmation should only count if it originates from ‘Risky Predictions’ which could diminish your theory, as Popper observed every good scientific theory is prohibitive. Popper argues that every false belief that we do come across is actually good as it brings us closer to believing things that are actually true. Popper then argues that only a genuine test of a theory can falsify something, for example, testing for Jesus’ reality, your method would have to prove he doesn’t exist rather than proving he does. Popper points out that Irrefutable Theories are not scientific as it cannot be tested and cannot have value. You can only prove Jesus is real is you do everything to prove he is not real and then failing to prove he is not real.