Popperian hypothetico-deductivists would find several problems with the view of science that 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 disagree with everything. Along with Chalmers' falsificationism or hypothetico-deductivism, his statement indicates that scientific induction is entirely justifiable. However, as is now known, induction is not a reasonable way to prove or justify science. One of the few problems that hypothetico-deductivists would find in Chalmers' statement is contained in the sentence: "Scientific theories in a rigorous manner from the facts of experience acquired through observation and experiment." » Theories are never strictly produced, Popper would say, but first developed from the thinking and feeling of a scientist in his or her given field. This then rejects the idea that theories are the result of facts and then advances the idea that a theory will be manipulated by individuals because they are nothing more than a personal concept with reason. Furthermore, if theories were meticulously derived from the facts, then this would imply that the theory is virtually perfect. Yet these theories that are constantly refuted by falsification then 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 by hypothetico-deductivists. comes in this statement, "Personal opinions have no place in science", this quote is extremely trivial. The scientific world would not be where it is today without speculation in the middle of an article......w. There is no basis for a scientist to say that induction is a proper arrangement of evidence in which there is no way to account for the evidence, and so there is no responsibility to use induction to verify the statement. Hypothetico-deductivists can find a number of problems with Chalmers' scientific view. Through the use of induction to the objectivity of science. Popper would argue that falsification and the way we understand life and the universe changes between individuals. Concluding that about Chalmers, he would disagree with every statement made. From my personal point of view, I am inclined to side with the hypothetico-deductivists because when they form 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 adopted in the modern world. scientific world.