This essay aims to discuss the problems with the Common View of Science presented by Alan Chalmers, from both Popperian's perspective and my personal views. Chalmers gives his opinion on what science is and the judgment will be made in this essay through the Popperian hypothetico-deductive and my arguments will be presented in this essay. Popperian is an important philosopher of science who developed the hypothetico-deductive method, also known as falsificationism. In my opinion, I do not agree with Chlamer's views on science and this will be presented later in an essay. I will limit my arguments to three parts due to word limits. Three aspects will be discussed in this essay: the justification of the view through Popper's view, my agreement with Popper's objections, and additional personal opinions. Chalmers' point of view against Popperian hypothetico-deductive. Popper mentioned that people should not focus our hopes on an unacceptable principle of induction. Furthermore, he claimed that without relying on induction, we can still understand how science works and why it is rational.1 Therefore, I would like to say that Popper I disagree with Chalmer's opinion . Furthermore, I think Popperian could say that Chalmers is wrong because he is falsifiable in the Popperian sense. Chalmers could be falsified if the scientific knowledge turns out to be unreliable due to some experiments and the observation could contain errors and we do not find them currently. Furthermore, the Popperian might argue that science cannot be proven but can justify the best theories or laws.1 We can justify which scientific laws or theories are best based on whether they are falsified or unscientific. When they turn out to be falsified or unscientific, we can look for bold new hypotheses...... middle of article ...... creative imagination can also have a place in science because it could lead to the development of new conjectures and advanced knowledge resulting from them. The above explanations also argue against the idea that "science is objective" because I have argued that individual opinion and speculative imagination should be considered part of the development of scientific knowledge. Accordingly, I would say that science is partly subjective and partly objective. In conclusion, Chalmers' point of view would be falsified and contrary to Popperian's hypothetico-deductive method. I agree with Popperian's view and object to Chalmers' definition of science because scientific knowledge is not always reliable. Furthermore, individual opinion and personal speculative imagination have a place in science. Finally, science must be partly subjective and partly objective..