Popperian hypothetical deductivists would find several problems with the view of science Alan Chalmers stated in "What is this thing called science?" From “Scientific knowledge is proven knowledge” to “Scientific knowledge is reliable knowledge because it is objectively proven” Popper would not agree with everything. With Chalmers' view of falsificationism or hypothetico-deductivism, his statement indicates that scientific induction is completely justifiable. However, as is now known, induction is not a reasonable way to demonstrate or justify science. One of the few problems that hypothetico-deductivists would find in Chalmers' statement is contained in the sentence: “Scientific theories in some rigorous way from the facts of experience gained from observation and experiment.” Theories are never rigorously produced, Popper would say, but primarily elaborated through the thinking and feeling of a scientist in their specific field. This therefore discards the idea that theories are the result of facts and advances the idea that a theory will be manipulated by individual people as they are nothing more than a personal concept with reason. Furthermore, if theories were meticulously derived from facts, the implication would be that the theory is virtually perfect. Yet these theories that are continually disproved through falsification therefore demonstrate that these theories are not only part of a scientist's thinking but also that falsification is a more precise form of proof and justification than that of induction. Another problem encountered for hypothetico-deductivists comes in this statement, "Personal opinions have no place in science", this quote is extremely banal. The scientific world would not be where it is today without speculation at…… middle of paper……w. There is nothing that allows a scientist to say that induction is an adequate disposition of the evidence where there is no way to account for it, so there is no responsibility in using induction to test the statement. A hypothetico-deductivist may find a number of problems in Chalmers' scientific vision. Through the use of induction to the objectivity of science. Popper would argue that falsification and how we understand life and the universe changes between individual people. Concluding that Chalmers would not agree with every statement made. With my personal perspective I am inclined to side with the hypothetico-deductivists since when they formulate an argument against Chalmers they have a much more accurate judgment about the world, so I am forced to make a decision with the interpretation that Popperian science has incorporated into the world modern. scientific world.