The following essay aims to discuss whether science is objective or subjective in light of two competing theories: inductivism and falsificationism. In addressing the main quote, I will outline how Popper would respond to two of Chalmers' fundamental ideas, before providing my own opinions and justifications on the subject. Chalmers's account of science is from an inductivist point of view. He believes that science is obtained by justifying universal statements from singular statements. (Chalmers, 1976) This suggests that these claims can be proven. Falsificationists disagree with the idea that scientific knowledge is proven knowledge. They believe that no number of observations will be enough to prove a statement. Rather, it only takes one observation to sufficiently refute a claim. Popper would respond that it is more than likely that a statement is false. He would conclude that scientific knowledge is not proven knowledge but rather the best justification for our understanding of the world at any given time. I support this opinion of Popper; nothing in science can be considered an indisputable truth. It is illogical for a singular statement to be considered a universal statement. By analogy, it is illogical to assume that all dogs are brown because, by observation, you have only ever seen brown dogs. This logic predisposes science to failure. An excellent example of this is the paradigm shift away from Newtonian physics in light of Einstein's discoveries. Einstein presented a new context of motion that had not been taken into account by Newton. The fact is that almost all scientific “truths” presented throughout history have been falsified, which constitutes an inherent flaw in the notion of induction. The electron was later shown to be within half a percent of the currently accepted value. It can be concluded that one cannot rely on observation alone, but rather science requires some ingenuity to make further deductions. In conclusion, by studying Chalmers' fundamental ideas, falsificationism was shown to be far superior to induction. First, scientific knowledge is not proven knowledge. Second, science is not objective. Investigations into the place of speculative imaginations in science have revealed that Chalmers and Popper were both right under certain conditions. The study of whether science was objective or subjective revealed that due to the limitations of observations of the human species, science is, at best, subjective. Works Cited Chalmers, A. (1976). What is this thing called science? Saint Lucia: University of Queensland Press.