The scientific work is part of the total human culture as we design. However, one wonders, what is the relationship between science and culture? This question can be very simple or very complex depending on what you mean by science or culture. The relationship can be found in this combination depends precisely the focus of attention is given to look from a particular position. For our part we take the view that the relationship between science and culture is a social and historical phenomenon whose characteristics are defined and modified as it built in different eras of mankind. Knowing the progress of scientific knowledge, its processes, its implications and unresolved questions, it creates expectations which put within reach, not only from teachers and students,

but also those members of society who have been unable to approach the school or who received a poor science education. Communication of concepts emerged within science but have been produced by men and women of flesh and bone to describe and understand the world we live in is a task that could otherwise be rewarding if it is close enough to notions simple to allow the people to feel able to know without thinking about the nature disqualified by his own history in school. Over the past millennia have done the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the cosmos and the place we occupy in it, follow the thread of these scans is really inspiring. They remind us that men have evolved to admire the things that is an understanding joy. [1] Carl Sagan's legacy is an invitation to reflect on what we know now, what we knew before and I know that we plan for the future as an activity not only necessary for our survival, but also as a pleasant activity in itself that includes all members of society, not only to philosophers, chemists, sociologists, anthropologists and biologists, for example. In fact, closer to the concepts emerging from the science becomes as an alternative to a social context in which the economic daily, the lack of credibility in the institutions, job prospects and a number of things, form a breeding ground for the emergence of myths and fundamentalism in the late twentieth century. However, we must be careful with this because even the myths are part of the social machinery. Which we consider a form of knowledge more valuable than another does not mean that we can conceive the existence of a non-scientific thinking and science outside the cultural sphere. The activities that comprise the total human labor, ie the artistic, political and religious, have to recognize that legitimacy or at least recognized by various groups to build their own paradigms or ways of understanding the world. The Yugoslav Yehuda Elkana (1983), Article Science as cultural system: an anthropological approach, which poses the view that there is a difference between background and pre-scientific cultures, or between thinking and non-Western societies Westerners, is due to a positivist conception of science and wrong. If we conduct a thorough socio-historical analysis of keywords such as science, magic, religion, myth, and so on., would be a way in which we could epistemological note perspectives on how to build and legitmidad of knowledge are socially determined through what Elkana called "images of knowledge", which can be a vehicle for explanation of the scientific and cultural exchange. There are many examples in history that can give an account of how certain images produced knowledge and no other. Try to outline very briefly one example of the evolution of ideas about the universe in order to illustrate this. The image of beauty and harmony of the universe for the Greeks focused on the figure of the circle. Aristotle developed three types of local movement: circular around the world, from inside the world into the sky, and sky to the center of the world. Nearly five centuries later, Ptolemy continued to use the circle to develop its model geocentric (Earth is the center of the universe). Catholicism of the Middle Ages legitimized the image on the beauty of the circle to explain to the man as the center of creation. Centuries later, Copernicus realized that the Earth was not the center of the universe because he was a witness and produced records on the occurrence of a supernova in the sky, and also noted that the apparent retrograde motion of Mars. Copernicus challenged the model ptolomeico on the position of the Earth and the stars, but never questioned the idea of the beauty of the circle. Developed his heliocentric model with circular orbits despite his observations on Mars, citing the argument of the epicycle (roll on a circumference of a circle fixed). For its part, the astronomer Tycho Brahe refused to accept it as a model of Copernicus a heretic and irreverent, yet made accurate observations and records that served as Kepler (who did horoscopes for survival) as a source of data to show that heliocentric model of Copernicus was correct, except for the orbital paths of planets. In the above example highlights the interplay between what is for some legitimate science with pseudo-science or pre-science. The legitimacy of knowledge changes over time because the companies are changed and modified them to carry out political, religious, economic. and for this same reason, the positivist idea of the existence of a genuine and objective science, is another of the many myths that live today. The analysis of the science culture, Elkana argues that a system can be given to cultural (including science, art, politics) on the other, provided they do not exclude its relationship with other systems. Culture is not an arithmetic sum of elements, but an open system of relations in which it is carried out a process of re-construction and by individuals who are immersed in it. Elkana takes semiotic concept of culture developed by Clifford Geertz, to assert that science is a cultural system that is historically constructed in a web of meanings that the human being developed and, therefore, is a system that can be questioned, amended, and taught resignified from one discipline to another and from one era to another. Defenders (extreme) of modern scientism can react to this statement by saying that science does not change and that is a single type. This position is still prevalent in many schools and universities where we work towards a "real science," single. Ideologies, political, social pressures and norms, not directly from the images (or visions) of knowledge but of course that interact with them. In terms of Bourdieu, this means that there is simultaneous production and reproduction of forms and concepts within systems. This is one of the central thesis of Elkana and constitutes a very important contribution to the analysis of the relationship between science and culture. In fact, the author identifies five ways to analyze this relationship: 1 .- The science undervalued in relation to culture. 2 .- The science overvalued in relation to culture. 3 .- The science field as a separate section on culture. 4 .- The science is considered the totality of human culture, which is obtained when deleting the other dimensions of culture (religion, ideology, art, etc..) As being obsolete, useless or a different order of importance. 5.-The view science as a cultural system, ranking it shares with religion, art, ideology, and so on.