scientific methodology

Science is an objective method to study the world. therefore, it has to be, in principle, independent from any type of subjective judgments and preferences. Aesthetics, judgment, on the contrary, is based on subjective tastes. this is the reason why foe a long period of time philosophers believes that there can be no relation between science and aesthetics. logical positivists, for instance, held the claim that scientific propositions directly imply to the objects and events of the world. Reichnbach said even if aesthetic sense were to be proved to have a role in this or that particular scientist's creativity, yet what is finally important for scientific methodology is the objective justification of a theory. i.e. the way a theory or a set of scientific propositions imply to the objects and events of the world. However, in recent decades, there has been a shift in the point of view of philosophers of science. and the relationship between aesthetics and science has become an attractive and serious subject for the field. The main goal of this research is to survey the relationship between aesthetics and science through both scientist's and philosopher's point of view. we take this survey in five levels: practical, methodological, production, thematic, and explanatory level.

Justifiability of knowledge statements has always been of the philosophers’ most important and original concerns. The introduction of the distinction between the context of discovery and the context of justification is also an attempt to answer this dilemma. The aim of the Context of discovery is to discover the context of scientific laws and theories, while the context of justification aims at justifying the context of theories. Each proponent of discovery/justification distinction, has, according to his/her philosophical approach, some interpretation of this distinction: temporal and logical Sequence of these two processes, considering the context of discovery as a factual and historical process of science and the context of justification as a normative framework for science, logical analysis of the context of justification vs. the context of discovery with its empirical analysis, belonging of the context of justification to the scope of philosophy of science and the context of discovery being particular to the field of history, psychology and sociology of science, the difference of the questions pointing out to each context, separation of internal and external history of science, normative perspective of discovery vs. factual perspective of justification. Using such a distinction in understanding the method of science can be criticized concerning: uncertainty of both contexts as temporal and logical processes, intervention of logical factors in the context of discovery, the distinction not being limited to the two contexts and the necessity of existing at least a three-fold distinction, the irrational and non-logical factors involved in the context of justification, the Para-normative growth of science and the diversity not being explained in the context of discovery.

Although Popper admits that in arriving at some of his proposals، he has been guided by value judgments and predilections، according to his own statements، it does not mean that he has made the same mistake of which he has accused the positivists through discussing the role of value-judgments in popper’s philosophy of science، It is argued here that value judgment’s influence on popper’s scientific methodology is further than his own admission. It seems to me، there are two important points in Popperian methodology، which are open to influx of values: the conventionalizing process of methodological rules; and the decision making process of basic statements. Upon the analyses of these two processes، following conclusions are drawn out that ‘scientists qua scientist make value-judgment’، and ‘Popper as a philosopher of science، makes value-judgment’.