From this it follows that whereas according to inductivists, what scientific tests do is to merely find out whether our scientific theories are true. According to Popper, scientific tests cannot establish the truth of scientific theories, even when the tests give positive results. If a test gives a positive result, inductivists claim that the scientific theory is established as true, whereas according to Popper, all that we claim is that our theory has not yet been falsified. Popper suspects even that “The sun always rises in the east”. In Popper's scheme, no amount of positive result of scientific testing can prove our theories. Whereas inductivists speak of confirmation of our theories in the face of positive results of the test, Popper only speaks of corroboration. In other words, in the inductivist scheme we can speak of scientific theories as established truths, whereas in the Popperian scheme a scientific theory however well supported by evidence remains permanently tentative. We can bring out the fundamental difference between verificationism (inductivism) and falsificationism (hypothetico-deductivism) by drawing on the analogy between two systems of criminal law. According to one system, the judge has to start with the assumption that the accused is innocent and consequently, unless one finds evidence against her/him, s/he should be declared innocent. According to the other, the judge has to start with the assumption that the accused is a culprit and consequently, unless evidence goes in her/his favour, s/he should be declared to be a culprit. Obviously, that latter system of criminal law is harsher than the former. The inductivist scheme is analogous to the former kind of criminal law, whereas the hypothetico-deductive scheme is akin to the latter one.