Here ' fits; ' entender' ' what the other thought (of the best possible form) for then only placing its positioning. It would be more or less the following one: let us imagine somebody that affirms that fish brain is good. If you find that this is a nonsense, or even though its religion not it allows to prove such thing, or by means of a colleague it knows that this is horrible, then will be able to say: you are wild? Or then ' ' I not concordo' ' end point. I would ask: he had some construction in this type of opinion? Not, for the opposite, you he finishes to close the chance to construct and to investigate an idea. Source: baby clothes. this if must to the fact of that the interlocutor was not worried, before affirming or denying something, what the other wanted to say. The interlocutor did not have the constructive one and necessary patience TO ENTER IN the LOGICAL THOUGHT of who affirmed that ' ' fish brain would be bom' '. To this lack of inquiry I called of FALSE CRITICAL SENSE. Then, what it would be a TRUE CRITICAL SENSE? That positioning that serves as a construction form what the other thought and analyzed; it is a commentary that more strengthens of what diverge, and this comes for the spirit to place new ideas, but that they are justified by concrete arguments. He is scientific, therefore, to suggest new possibilities for cause ' ' of this ' ' or ' ' of that ' ' , but this is fruit of an inquiry! Now, it would not be scientific commentaries as ' ' each one has its opinion and pronto' '. This work, therefore, is a small beginning of the scientific activities that we believe to be part interdisciplinadamente in the life of each one of us daqui for front, without being dominated for the media or other forms of manipulation that makes in them to be apticos.