In accordance with what Popper considers to be the hallmark of scientific theories, he puts forward an adequate model of scientific method. He characterizes his model of scientific method as hypothetico-deductive (H-D) model. According to him, the method of science is not the method of induction, but the method of hypothetico-deduction. What are the fundamental differences between these methodological models? First, the inductivist model maintains that our observations are theory-independent and therefore are indubitable. That is to say, since observations are theory-independent, they have probability value of 1. It also says that our theories are only winnowed from observations and therefore our scientific theories have the initial probability value 1 in principle. Of course, inductivists admitted that in actual practice, theories may contain something more than what observation statements indicate the result; our actual theories may not have been winnowed from observations. Hence, the need for verification arises. Popper rejects the inductivist view that our observations are theory-free and hence rejects the idea that our observation statements have probability equal to 1. More importantly, he maintains that theories are not winnowed from observations or facts, but are free creations of human mind. Our scientific ideas, in other words, are not extracted from our observations; they are “pure” inventions. Since our theories are our own constructions, not the functions of anything like pure observations, which according to Popper are anyway myths, the initial probability of our scientific theories is zero. ............................