This essay aims to discuss the problems of the common view of science presented by Alan Chalmers from the Popperian perspective and my personal views. Chalmers gives his opinion on what science is and judgment will be expressed in this essay through Popperian hypothetico-deductive and my arguments will be presented in this essay. Popperian is a prominent philosopher of science who developed the hypothetico-deductive method, also known as falsificationism. In my opinion, I do not agree with Chlamer's scientific views and this will be present in the essay later. I will limit my arguments into three parts because of the word limitation. Three aspects will be discussed in this essay: the justification of my view through Popper's view, my agreement with Popper's objections, and further personal opinions. Chalmers' vision against the Popperian hypothetico-deductive. Popper argued that people should not focus our hopes on an unacceptable principle of induction. Furthermore, he argued that without relying on induction we can still understand how science works and why it is rational.1 So, I would like to say that Popper would have to disagree with Chalmer's opinion. Furthermore, I think Popperian might say that Chalmers is wrong because he is falsifiable in the Popperian sense. Chalmers could be falsified if it is observed that scientific knowledge is not reliable due to some experiment and the observation may contain errors and now we do not find them. 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 what is found to be falsified or unscientific. When they are found falsified or unscientific, we can look for bold new hypotheses... middle of paper... active imagination can also have a place in science because it may be able to lead to the developments of new conjectures and advanced knowledge drift from that. The above explanations are also contrary to the idea that "science is objective" because I argue that individual opinion and speculative imagination should be seen as a part of the development of scientific knowledge. Consequently, I would say that science is partly subjective and partly objective. In conclusion, Chalmers' vision would be falsified and contrary to Popperian's hypothetico-deductive method. I agree with Popperian's view and disputed 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 should be partially subjective and partially objective.