The philosopher Karl Popper, an inductive skeptic, is criticized for his objection to confirmation. Instead of using the term confirmation to describe a theory that went on to be proven correctly, Popper created his own. Popper states that corroboration is a term used to describe theories that have been tested and not yet falsified. According to Peter Godfrey-Smith (GS), “Popper can say why we should prefer to use a theory that has not been falsified over a theory that has been falsified” (Smith 68). The problem with Popper lies when he is presented with two theories, neither of which has been falsified. This is when Popper has difficulty choosing one theory over another. This situation can be better understood by looking at the bridge problem. I will argue that Popper is unable to solve the bridge problem using corroboration because the term is synonymous with confirmation. There are two theories (T1: Theory One) and (T2: Theory Two) that have different implications on how to build a bridge. These two theories are similar because both have not been falsified, however they differ because one has been tested and the other has not. The theories are explicitly stated below. T1: Theory that has been tested many times and has never been falsified T2: Theory that has never been tested and has never been falsified Next we can formally reconstruct the argument in modusponens form as follows: (P1) If T1 is corroborated, then T1 is rational(P2) T1 is corroborated(C) T1 is rationalBefore I say what's wrong with the argument, I want to explain the bridge objection. In “Theory and Reality”, GS presents the bridge problem, which is a response to Popper given by inductivists. I chose to explain this... halfway through the article...... its term corroboration is synonymous with confirmation. In conclusion, I have argued that Popper is unable to solve the volleyball problem using corroboration because the term is synonymous with confirmation and Popper denies confirmation. Of course, there must be something more to what Popper thinks about corroboration, from the readings we have no reason to understand why the two terms corroboration and confirmation differ. Until Popper says more about confirmation, we are entitled to regard the term as equivalent in meaning to confirmation. Work Cited Blackmon, James. “Lesson no. 13: “Confirm”. Philosophy 30. UC DAVIS. Davis, November 5, 2013. Blackmon, James. “Lesson no. 17: “Popper's Bridge”. Philosophy 30. UC DAVIS. Davis, November 26, 2013. Godfrey-Smith, Peter. Theory and reality: an introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2003. Print.