Abstract : Mainly because of their ambiguity and reliance on school curricula, views promoting a "cultural knowledge" of science (in French: "culture scientifique") have been repeating themselves identically since thirty years, holding it able to improve both elite detection and knowledge sharing, forgetting that the educational system categorizes pupils into one quarter of scientists and three quarters of non-scientists. For the latter, a conative obstacle adding to natural cognitive obstacles literally teaches them to accept this categorization, which may even become a self-fulfilling prophecy that they are not able any more to deal with any sort of science. Moreover, this "knowledge", being a prescription without any relation to the scientific and technological dimension of culture as experienced by everyone, reinforces the epistemological divide between scientific knowledge and knowledge originating in day-to-day life: instead of recognizing the opportunities of acculturation to science brought about by technical practices, it introduces a "scholastic" obstacle. We suggest that this field of cultural knowledge of science for adults can be categorized in two families. The first one organizes the dialogue between scientists and "laymen" without questioning this divide. The second, which fosters the appropriation of knowledge and of approaches that transgress the "scientific-unscientific" stereotypes, belongs to historical currents in self-directed learning, fighting for chosen knowledge and empowerment: make the best of a chronic illness through life-acquired knowledge, take part in activist-organized surveys, or find fulfillment in experimental techno-scientific leisure activities. Those activities that could be seen as "little science" (or "impure science" when they are linked with academic teams) are a relevant way to fight this new kind of "scientific gender" built in our post-modern societies by school curricula, by helping nonscientist adults to re-discover science self-directed learning opportunities. And it is a key issue, because the main problem is also to question that science social divide conception itself: cannot the road-book be to use the qualification "scientific" as a perspective accessible to anyone and not only as a specific category of persons, the "scientists", seen as the owners of the power of scientific method and scientific "way of thinking" a contrario of the laymen?