Popper discusses many ideas in his essay; while his issue of falsification dealt with the works of many scientists. It also included his problem of demarcation, which he related to testability and empirical data. The most reputable scientists, including Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Kepler, Bohr, help to provide a basic well-rounded perspective of science in general. While impressive to even the skeptical Popper, he writes none have clearly defined what science is. Popper claims this results in an oversimplification while stating that hundreds of scientists fall into a “heroic” category. His classification, as he states, is not meant to show less regard for the “lesser” scientists, but to rather show the inflated senses of grandeur associated with the actions of the more famous scientists. He goes on to say it is risky to assume that principles are correct when using these principles for the foundation of additional theory. He refers to Copernicus and Aristarchus’s claim that it was not the Earth that was the center of the universe, but the sun. This ended up to be more true than the previous claim, however still was ultimately incorrect. Popper says that in this sense, the scientists’ theories were essentially unscientific or metaphysical, though they were considered true science at that time. One can only wonder how much of today’s science will be undermined by the science of the future. Popper considered Einstein and Kepler to be bold because they pressed revolutionary views yet were scientists. Their theories bordered on metaphysical but were explained in terms of what was known to be normal and accepted fact. They were risky in this same sense because they could not have been accepted. Another kind of boldness, as described by Popper, was there stating that aspects of the world had been overlooked by the scientists before them. Marxism is quite different from the theory it is today while it was once considered scientific. It suggested that capitalism would eventually convert the world to one of failure in many senses while being wrought with despair. Socialism would be the result while occurring first in the most technologically advanced country. While this happened to some extent in the past, it technically could have been perceived as science in this regard. The full extent of the predictions was never realized. While some did in fact regard Marxism as a science, it would later be removed from this category. It violated a rule in the theoretical scientific method that people must consider falsification. Freud and psychoanalysis, on the other hand, were rather different. While never a science, the practices were highly regarded nonetheless. While many people may have fit the criteria since the theories do not exclude any aspect of behavior. As such, anything anybody does fits some sort of profile. Any situation, even when the motives and outcomes were effective opposites, could be explained by the same theory. As such, while Marxism was not scientific because it used an ‘immunizing strategy,’ psychoanalysis was immune in this sense from the foundation of its theories. The majority of theories are without immunization initially, commonly including either a nonspecific answer to everything or a specific way of generalizing