Karl Popper termed the demarcation problem as distinguishing science from pseudoscience. 
It is compelling that it cannot be inferred from multiple statements that a scientific law is true. Science proceeds by forming hypotheses and deductive inferences that show the hypothesis to be false; this is falsification. Presumptions in science are unjustifiable and Karl Popper’s method of hypothetico-deductivism is logical. Alan Chalmers’ scientific reasoning is inductive and he believes scientific method produces reliable knowledge through the application of inductive reasoning (SCIE1000 Lectures Notes (2015), p. 188). Science is not a body of facts, however, it is merely a method of critical thinking using evidence to justify hypotheses. Induction …show more content…
By arguing inductively in that it has always or has usually been reliable in the past, begs the question by assuming what actually has to be proved. On the other hand, falsifying a hypothesis leads to ideas about new hypotheses and how to test them (SCIE1000 Lectures Notes (2015), p. 198). Alan Chalmers criticises such objectives as investigative uses of theories, but this seems to sacrifice the most critical parts of the theory (Mayo, D. G, 2014). This is not always true as you only need to find one in that phenomenon to be false and then the generalisation fails. No matter how many observations are made using induction, they do not prove a generalisation because there may be circumstances not tested that do not fit the theory. Therefore we must instead justify one hypothesis over another and as those theories are falsified, determine a new hypothesis adding conjecture as to why the previous hypothesis was rejected - this is …show more content…
In his view, science is a deductive process in which hypotheses are formulated. He also commented that theories are not verified or confirmed but may be falsified and rejected or accepted by the scientific method. Popper expressed the problems of induction, which included that the formation of the truth of a theory by experiential evidence is fallible and also the justification through observed evidence of one theory over another. He declared that both of these statements were unsolvable because scientific theories have infinite possibilities. Additionally, Popperian hypothetico-deductivists find many problems with Alan Chalmers’ inductive reasoning. Karl Popper would say that it is not necessarily correct in saying that science is objective and that personal opinions and ideas have no place in science. It is misleading to say that scientific knowledge is proven knowledge, however this leads us to think that knowledge is certain and this is not correct. Conjectured scientific laws are established facts that have not yet been shown to be false and are currently the best theory for a particular situation. Popper would also rigorously comment that it is difficult to justify the reliability of induction as a form of