The paper highlights Popper’s falsifiability as the demarcation criterion neither of science nor of empirical science, but of empirical content. The difference is of utmost importance for several reasons. First, it shows that the most widespread criticisms of Popper’s criterion are misguided. Second, it sheds new light on the relations between being empirical and being scientific. Third, it explains what still remains typical of empiricism after it has been purged from the three dogmas as described by Quine and Davidson. The paper elaborates on all the three points.