abstract: scientific aesthetizing has psychological, cultural, epistemological, and methodological functions in scientific practices, offers a great motivation for the scientist to make scientific inquiries, and thus is fairly important in scientific invention or discovery. scientific aesthetizing is not only the breakthrough in scientific invention or discovery, but also the touchstone of the evaluation or justification of scientific theories.

     key words: anesthetizing, scientific anesthetizing; function of scientific anesthetizing


as to science, scientific anesthetizing has more huge function than people expect. from outside, scientific aesthetizing not only offers great motivation for the scientists to make scientific inquiries, but also the link and bridge of scientific culture and humane culture. from inside (as much scientific theory), scientific aesthetizing is an indispensable power to drive scientific development, which is the breakthrough in scientific invention and the touchstone of the evaluation of scientific theories.
at the beginning of modern science, n. copernicus regarded the scientist’s aesthetizing to nature and science as research drive: “in the field of many cultures and arts created by human wisdom, i thought the most intense sentiment and extreme zealous must be used to promotes the research which is finest, most worth understanding. is where anything else much more pretty than the heaven including all nice stuff?” and he said that there was no doubt that astronomy was the peak of all academic areas and was the encouragement research for human to engage. (copernicus 1992, p.1-2) poincaré paid close attention to aesthetizing, he declared beyond the shadow of a doubt:
the scientists does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful. if nature were not beautiful, it would not be worth knowing, and if nature were not knowing, life would not be worth living. (poincaré 1913)
he said subsequently: “it is because simplicity, because grandeur, is beautiful, that we preferably seek simple fact, sublime fact; that we delight now to follow the majestic course of the stars, now to examine with the microscope that prodigious littleness which is also a grandeur, now to seek in geologic time the traces of a past which attracts because it is far away.” (poincaré 1913, p.366-367) in poincaré’s opinion, the scientific beautiful, as same as natural beauty, is a reason of scientist to pursue science. “it is when it discloses to us this harmony that science is beautiful and so worthy to be cultivated.” (p.538) he explained it by taking mathematics as the example: “mathematics has a triple aim. it must furnish an instrument for the study of nature. but that is not all: it has a philosophic aim and, i dare maintain, an esthetic aim. it must aid the philosopher to fathom the notions of number, of space, of time. and above all, its adepts find therein delights analogous to those given by painting and music. they admire the delicate harmony of number and forms; they marvel when a new discovery opens to them an unexpected perspectives; and has not the joy they thus feel the esthetic character, even though the senses take no part therein? only a privileged few are called to enjoy it fully, it is true, but is not this the case for all the noblest arts? ” for this reason, “mathematics deserves to be cultivated for its own sake, and the theories inapplicable to physics as well as the others.” (p.280)
as for the famous scientist, it is not a special case that they look on scientific aesthetizing as the motive of scientific discovery, and is a universal phenomenon. for example, pearson speaks frankly: “it is this continual gratification of the aesthetic judgment which is one of the chief delights of the pursuit of pure science.” (pearson 1892, p.43) einstein (1977, p.103) thinks: “to long for seeing the pre-stable harmony is the source of infinite willpower and patience.” hilbert (in his memorial hermann minkowski) lectured in very poetic languages: “our science, which we loved above everything, had brought as together. it appeared to us as a flowering garden. in this garden there were well-worn paths where one might look around at leisure and enjoy oneself without effort, especially at the side of a congenial companion. but we also liked to seek out hidden trains and discovered many an unexpected view which was pleasing to our eyes; and when the one pointed it out to the other, and we admitted it together, our joy was complete.”(chandrasekhar 1995, p.52) the fact indicated that scientists feel the esthetic sense frequently when they are engaged in the scientific creation, in general, this kind of esthetic sense enhances people's creation will as usual, promotes to explore the truth. the science esthetic factors play a vital role in improving the creation enthusiasm of scientists. in fact, the seeking of esthetic sense and joyful always affects and stimulates mathematical development. intentionally or not, mathematician always chooses the esthetic sense questions from a big pile of subjects and patterns. in the genuine mathematician's mind, the desire of their thirst for esthetic sense is stronger than the desire of shrew that wants to quarrels.
scientific aesthetizing is also one kind of link or the bridge, which may make up two cultural fissures. scientific aesthetizing bestow science on some cultural status and value, the human nature factor and human touch. von goethe already expressed: “ nowhere would anyone grant that science and poetry can be united. they forgot that science arose from poetry, and did not see that when times change the two can meet again on a higher level as friends.” the scientist, just as the poet, draws upon the same aesthetic resources as a primary component of his experience. the aesthetic in this sense may serve as a crucial faculty of re-integrating experience. in short, the aesthetic dimension may be the bridge that unifies the objective, qua scientific, with the subjective, qua personal, thus closes two cultural fissions and our disassociation of personality. (tauber 1997, p.404) especially in the creative time, the boundary between the science and the artistic dispelled. esthetics becomes very important. as to einstein, just likes copernicus and galileo in those days, they looked on esthetics as data. chandler explained this question by the relations of which the beauty represents art truth represent science:
there are two kinds of truth: the truth that lights the way and truth that warms the heart. the first of these is science, and the second is art. neither is independent of the other or more important than the other. without art, science would be as useless as a pair of high forceps in the hands of a plumber. without science, art would become a crude mess of folklore and emotional quackery. the truth of art keeps science from becoming inhuman, and the truth of science keeps art from becoming ridiculous.
indeed, both human efforts can be united around the truth in the endeavor to find beauty. aesthetics without science is useless and science without aesthetics has no value. science with aesthetics can be of value. ( fischer 1999, p.181)
a dichotomy exists in the science between those like bohr who assume that their starting point and base of verification is sense perception, and those, like heisenberg, who believe that sense perception is an unnecessary limitation. such a case is the contrast between hertz and mach: hertz advocated a purely intellectual process in his “pure natural science”, while mach believed “every statement in physics has to state relations between observable quantity”. both pure science and science related observation are subject to aesthetic judgment. the esthetics of pure relations engages our minds as music does through harmonic relationships. intuition as well as esthetic judgments operate in both approaches to science. moreover the role of cognitive mode and aesthetic sensibility plays a vital part in the structure and style of the scientific process. and aesthetics is presented in this collection as a mode of cognition which focuses on forms and metaphor used in scientific conceptualizing and modeling. (wechsler 1978, pp.2, 6) no matter how, the scientific aesthetic function manifests mainly in two aspects in which one is scientific invention, other is scientific evaluation.
the scientific aesthetizing plays a pivotal role in science invention or scientific discovery. scientific theory object expresses the harmony discovering in nature, therefore this tempts people to accept thing that satisfy the aesthetizing judgment as science, which results cannot often cause the scientist to be deceived too. in particular, in the emerging instant of new scientific concept and the principle, the unconsciousness aesthetizing connoisseurship and the aesthetizing choice are even decisive. in summary, scientific aesthetizing is the breach of scientific invention or scientific discovery. furthermore, the epoch-making scientific invention causes the scientific revolution very possibly. therefore the scientific aesthetizing has also the indissoluble bond with the scientific revolution.
switzerland zoologist and cultural philosopher a. portnann reminded us that alongside highly praised rational thought and its ability for scientific analysis, which he summarized as the “theoretical function” of humanity, there was also the “aesthetic function” as its complementary counterpart”, which he described as having to do with the impression of the senses, with perception. the aesthetic function is much better at providing the “basis of human behavior” than the theoretical function. he said: “real though, productive thought even in the most exacting areas of research needs the intuitive, spontaneously creative to work; the aesthetic function, dreams, waking dreams, and all sensory experiences open up inestimable possibilities.” fischer also pointed out, when the rationality runs up against its limits and recourse to enlightened reason is no help any more, then it may help if we become conscious of our given human ability that serves as a counterpoint to thinking -- feeling. feeling is released through our senses; they help us to perceive the world and recognize value. (fischer 1999, pp.168, 179) here called feeling mainly has reference to scientific anesthetizing sense.
the scientist has sincere experience about it. when they talk about own and other’s work, they always use terminologies words “beauty”, “elegance”, “economy”, “simplicity” which frequently praise painting, music, poetry, or send out the exclamation of recognition which follow to discovery a connection of art and science, or realize that we have not expect but entirely accurate thing. reality is nearly caught like magic, which is not the explicit expression for the reality and had not realized before. for example, kepler discovered the new mathematical formalism through extremely observational data about planetary motion. this kind of relational beauty guided him to propose three laws effectively by his name. in the ending of cosmos harmony , he suddenly cheers: thanks to god, the creator of us, who presents beauty to us in his creatures. maxwell has unique insight in the research electrodynamics, he sees clearly the electrodynamics equation so long as attaches one item, it becomes quite symmetrical, moreover this item extremely small, compares with old method, which cannot have the influence which may observe. he immersed the feeling of mathematical symmetry or mathematical analogy at that time, namely immersed in mathematic beauty, but his transcendental procedure was confirmed after 20 years, which made him be outstanding in the mathematical physics.
why can scientific aesthetizing become the breach of scientific discovery? poincaré，as the mathematical leader at the end of 19 century and in the beginning of 20 century, has give a penetrating explanation. he said, mathematical creation does not consist in making new combinations with mathematical entities already known. any one could to that, but the combinations so made would be infinite in number and most of them absolutely without interest. to create consists precisely in not making useless and in making these which are useful and which are only a small minority. the useful combinations are precisely the most beautiful and mean those best able to charm this special sensibility that all mathematicians know. invention is discernment, choice. after consciously self drive unconscious self, unconscious self or subliminal self often combine remote elements together and capture by the feeling of anesthetizing, which plays the breakthrough role in mathematical creation.
among the great numbers of combinations blindly formed by the subliminal self, almost all are without interest and without utility; but just for that reason they are also without effect upon the esthetic sensibility. consciousness will never know them; only certain ones are harmonious, and, consequently, at once useful and beautiful. they will be capable of touching this special sensibility of the geometer of which i have just spoken, and which, once aroused, will call our attention to them, and thus give them occasion to become conscious… thus it is this special sensibility which plays the role of the delicate sieve of which i spoke, and that sufficiently explain why the one lacking it will never be a real creator. (poincaré 1913, pp386, 392)
poincaré’s conclusion is not fabricated. he concluded the automorphic function from his own invention. he gave a very vivid description to mental process of invention. many scientists and scholar's views are linking to poincaré’s description and thought. american mathematician papert integrates mathematical beauty, mathematical pleasant sensation, and mathematical intuition to mathematics. as to him not seek help from esthetics in the logical terminology cannot understand mathematical activity, which should become the basic principle of mathematical creation theory. mathematical research is not marches forward along the smooth way, swampy ground is very possible, only the introduction esthetics sensitivity, the mathematician can get rid of the fixed admission passage (luke 1986). scientific historian a. i. miller believed that, scientific invention is published as the great artistic work, music work and the literary works, which also fills the aesthetic factor. because invention is the choice useful combination, such choice depends on aesthetic and the intuition. these discipline boundaries often vanished in the creation time. (miller 1988)
a russian author receives influence from poincaré about the invention automorphic function mechanism inspiration, which has discussed the science creation aesthetic mechanism. as to him, the invention process (scientific discovery) has four stages: the preparation, the fermentation (mature), the comprehension (enlightenment) and completes. the first and the fourth stages are conscious activity, and the second and the third stages are psychological unconscious ingredient. perfect rational and the accumulation knowledge are under conscious control. they not only promote comprehension, but also hindrance comprehension. the promotion causes the attention to concentrate on the following three aspects: questions studied, collects material and the difficulty in material understanding. the hindrance lies in: ingrained idea; mechanical thinking mode lead human to the wrong direction unconsciously; steps the common knowledge path again, but the original duty is to open a new way. introspection or invention breaks conventional ideas, whose archenemy is custom thinking mode. once the ingredient of thought drops consciously or vanishes completely, comprehension arises spontaneously. that is because, creative thought is a kind of image thinking without words, which does not need such standardization mark like language and has the enormous flexibility. it very easy to link up distanced factor together. more important is that invention is choice, what carries on the unconsciously choice is scientific aesthetizing sense. therefore, the unconsciousness ingredient in researcher's psychology and the aesthetic factor in researcher’s though are close correlation. creation is the product of beauty. every creative act belongs to beauty in essentially. in order to provide evidence to viewpoint which invention is unconscious aesthetizing, this author has quoted some great philosopher’s opinions. for example, although leibniz called unconsciousness perception the tiny perception, he thought its function is very big. this kind of consciousness has formed habit and the anesthetizing ability, which make our psychological activity not easy to realize, but it is actually reliable foundation. kant has even said: rationality functions primary in an implicit way; and unconsciousness is the midwife of thoughts. (guxuejia 1981)
why unconsciousness anesthetizing develops unprecedented function in scientific invention? plato's explanation is: the soul feels the awe trembles when it sees beautiful thing, because it felt something be aroused, which is not gave from the exterior sense organ, but which is already continuously places in the deep unconsciousness boundary territory. r. penrose acknowledged frankly that creative mental penetrates plato's kingdom and glimpse the beautiful mathematical form in some aspects. anesthetizing can be looked on as the guiding principle in many mathematical works. he says: rigorous arguments usually are the final step; and before this step, people have to make many guesses, to which anesthetizing is really significant. (davis 1992, pp.176-177)
plato as well as kepler, pauli, penrose all based on priority, but he has promulgated the secret of creative psychology. maslow’s peak experience perhaps can turn on the modern key of this labyrinth, although more or less which has some kinds of trace of plato thought. scientists often enter the peak experience condition in the deep aesthetic experience, people can face directly reality itself in this time, see clearly the real face of unified reality. in the peak experiencing of scientific aesthetic, aesthetic feeling, as evinced by the loss of self in the object of study must then be the apogee of scientific creativity, for it is precisely this merging of subjective and objective knowledge to yield understanding that is described by so many of the greatest men and women of science as the most memorable aspect of their work. somehow, external stimuli must set up internal resonance that that amplify and purify perception. consider, for example the physicist w. pauli commenting on the influence of archetypal or psychologically innate ideas that well up from inside the soul of the scientist:
the bridge, leading from the initially unordered data of experience to the ideas, consists in certain primeval images pre-existing in the soul -- the archetypes of kepler. these primeval images should not be located in consciousness or related to specific rationally formulizable ideas. it is a question, rather, of forms belonging to the unconscious region of the human soul, images of powerful emotional content, which are not thought, beheld, as it were, pictorially. the delight one feels, on becoming aware of a new piece of knowledge, arises from the way such preexisting images fall into congruence with the behavior of the external objects.
in short, pauli espouses the view that, that which we know innately or subjectively and that which we know objectively and externally must be melded to yield understanding. therefore, science must look simultaneously inward to the mind-soul and outward to the universe and find harmony. in the juxtaposition to be aesthetically satisfied. it is only thus that we can understand the importance of einstein’s remark that, “i am a little piece of nature”, or planck's criterion of acceptable and satisfying science could be summarized by the single phrase, “only when i have convinced myself”. that which id true is what satisfied me when i have struggled with it, interrogated it, and pondered the meanings of its answers in light of my experience, my existence, myself. i become what i study, and when the i and it merge, understanding has been achieved. but because that understanding is inextricably personal, it is also fallible. (root-bernstein 1996, pp.68-69)
the same understanding of pauli and what we mentioned while discussing the aesthetic one is comprehensive, in coordination with consciousness, unite feeling or the design consciousness of crossing, knowing comprehensively, the experience of aesthetic summit play an important role in science. this can be found out from the following statement at one glance: the rational attitude of science makes people in main object two points of understanding relations. the aesthetic attitude makes people in the main object thing relation that i blend. in aesthetic activity, various spiritual ability of people's sense consciousness, emotion, imagines, intuition and reason, blend together organically, stand up actively, therefore enable examining aesthetic understanding and knowing to become a kind of perceptibility that specially melts of people actively. though it does not break away from the perceptual field, it incorporates people's reason at the same time. what this made the aesthetic perceptual is different from the perceptual in epistemological meaning. in the aesthetic state, the subject is in perceptual and reason, knowing and spiritual integration state imagining strength unified. the integration course does not rise to abstract concept to win a certain knowledge representation of chaos, but demonstrate a new world mode, the ones that showed the possible and hope from the synchronized of the world in aesthetic appraisal in the thing mine. (xu 1997, pp.93-95)

scientific aesthetizing is not only the breach of scientific invention and scientific discovery, but also is a touchstone of the evaluation and defense of scientific theory. in fact, these two courses can be interwove together, which is very difficult to be separated completely. for example, in whole course what science invented, aesthetic appraisal of old theory and aesthetic appreciate of new theory participate together in it. logical empiricism affirmed the former and denied the latter, which is biased. j. w. mcalister refers in particular that logical positivists conceded that aesthetic factor could affect a scientist’s behavior in the context of discovery, since they thought that a scientist could be inspired to formulate a hypothesis by a stimulus of any sort. but they rejected the suggestion that aesthetic factor played any part in the context of justification, presumably because they could conceive of no way in which aesthetic criteria could be assimilated to logical or empirical criteria. in fact, the scientist does not distinguish clearly the context of discovery and the context of justification in one's own job, the scientist appeals to the aesthetic factor while proposing hypothesis and evaluating theory. p. a. m. dirac emphasizes, their influence both as heuristic guides and as grounds for theory evaluation: “physics law should have mathematical beauty.” he has expounded these words to the theory of general relativity: “the foundations of the theory are, i believe, stronger than what one could get simply from the support of experiment evidence. the real foundations come from the great beauty of the theory…. it is the essential beauty of the theory which i feel the real reason for believing in it.” (mcallister 1978, pp.13-16) a lot of famous scientists all think, intuition and aesthetics judging are the decisive factors while determining to accept or refuse to upbraid the particular theory model. dirac commented on e. schrödinger’s not publishing his first version of the wave equation (the relativistic wave equation) which proved later it was totally correct, because it conflicted with empirical data. he said:
i think there is a moral to this story, namely that it is more important to have beauty in one’s equations, than to have them fit experiment…. it seems that if one is working from the point of view of getting beauty in one’s equations, and if one has really a sound insight, one is on a sure line of progress. if there is not complete agreement between the results of one’s work and experiment, one should not allow oneself to be too discouraged, because the discrepancy may well be due to minor features that are not properly taken into account and that will get cleared up with further developments of the theory. (wechsler 1978, p.5)
how does the scientist use the scientific aesthetizing to appraisal theory? aesthetic standards of above-mentioned are all tools that scientists appraised the theory. here, we only enumerate two representative scientists' works. h. hertz forms the rule of choosing the theory picture through three standards. except logical consistency and empirical adequacy or corresponding with the phenomenon, there are simplicity and distinctness. he says: “two permissible and correct images of the same external objects may yet differ in respect of appropriateness. of two images of the same object that is the more appropriate which pictures more of the essential relations of the object -- the one which we may call the more distinct. of two images of equal distinctness the more appropriate is the one which contains, in addition to the essential characteristics, the smaller number of superfluous or empty relations -- the simpler of the two.[and hertz adds the remark that] empty relations cannot be altogether avoided.” in this case, the intelligible variety regarding the simplicity and distinctness is causing under-determination in choosing theories which are different ones, but equivalent in experiences, and having same appropriateness. this has introduced the need of scientific anesthetizing judgment conversely. the third standard of hertz is aesthetic standards of choosing theory picture. (majer 1990, pp.61-63) einstein uses one pair of scales to appraise the scientific theory, that is, external confirmation and inner perfection. the latter standard is an esthetic one that means premise (basic conception and basic relation) of theory “naturalness” and “logical simplicity”. (li 1985) jardine introduces aesthetic qualities to say aesthetic virtues, who spread out three aesthetic types of scientists who appraise to scientific theory. this is: owe aesthetic virtues to the theory or hypothesis directly, because the theory or hypothesis has some aesthetic virtues; owe aesthetic virtues to the phenomenon which was observed by theory or hypothesis, because theory or hypothesis can prove demonstrating some aesthetic virtues in their explaining phenomenon. owe aesthetic virtues to the description (imitating, expounding, diagram, drawing, etc.) of the phenomenon, because the theory or hypothesis demonstrates aesthetic virtues in the description of phenomenon that they explain. (jardine 1991, pp.208-209)
even if experience standard could have a final and ultimate standard about if scientific theory is foothold, why we appraise it with the esthetic standard? once i analyzed it in two papers (li 1985, 1992) about value evaluation to scientific theory, aesthetic evaluation occupies into it naturally, and it can't be absent. here the reason is only slightly say just a few to aesthetic evaluation.
why we use the esthetic evaluation is obviously scientist must to make the choice in many theories that satisfy equally the experience standard, in order to choose the beautiful theory among them. moreover, as logical empiricists state correctly that there are many difference between the theories of the same equivalence class which are completely trivial and irrelevant with respect to the empirical content of these theories: difference of notation, of languages, of formulation, of representation, and so forth. but their view that all the non-empirical difference are irrelevant with respect to the choice among different theories can’t be accepted. some are not! if we call the former differences “differences of style”, then it does not exhaust the difference among empirically equivalent theory; besides difference of “style”, there are other differences too, like one hertz of so-called simplicity and uniqueness, which are relevant for the choice among different (yet empirically equivalent) theory. let us call these non-stylistic but somehow relevant differences “aesthetic” differences. (majer 1990, pp.62-63) in fact, people can always produce a kind of theory and even a lot of theories to explain the known fact, or even prophesy some new fact. in this case, the close examination standard to the theory can only be aesthetic.
there are deeper reasons in the application of aesthetic evaluation. in reality, far from being wheeled up only when empirical criteria have shown the theories on offer to be equally worthy, aesthetic preferences often overrule the standard empirical criteria in scientists’ choices among theories. the situation is therefore not that aesthetic criteria are applied once scientists have ascertained, on empirical standards for the acceptability of theories, which theories they may accept; rather aesthetic and empirical criteria jointly determine scientists’ standards for the acceptability of theories. historical studies confirm that aesthetic considerations play a role in these decisions. the aesthetic factor of which we shall construct a model should therefore be considered as fully distinctive of science as scientists’ logical or empirical concerns. this does not mean, of course, that no useful distinction can be drawn between scientists’ empirical and aesthetic consideration; but it does mean that the distinctions we draw between them cannot be portrayed as a demarcation between the scientific and the extrascientific.( mcallister 1996, p.17) the more important thing is that should realize that a beautiful one of the theories equally fitted to experiences is one closer to reality on ontology, and is a more basic theory too; the non-beautiful theory is not complete, provisional, transitional, and will be replaced by the beautiful theory eventually sooner or later. just in this kind of meaning, einstein’s legitimate intellectual objections to the ultimate acceptability of orthodox quantum theory had everything to do with the high intellectual/personal aspirations that he had for physics -- orthodox quantum theory being capable only of claiming “the interest of shopkeepers and engineers”, in that it merely correctly predicts the results of experiments and does not help reveal to us “the old one”. in this scientific artist's eyes, orthodox quantum theory thus is intellectually “a wretched bungle”.( maxwell 1984, pp.7-8) j. w. n. sullivan has a comprehensive comment on this:
since the primary object of the scientific theory is to express the harmonies, which are found to exist in nature, we see at once that these theories must have a aesthetic value. the measure of the success of a scientific theory is, in fact, a measure of its aesthetic value, since it is a measure of the content to which it has introduced harmony in what was before chaos. it is in its aesthetic value that the justification of the scientific theory is to be found, and with it the justification of the scientific method. since facts without laws would be of no interest, and laws without theories would have , at most, only a practical utility, we see that the motives which guide the scientific man are, from the beginning, manifestations of the aesthetic impulse.……the measure in which science falls short of art is the measure in which it is incomplete as science. (chandrasekhar 1995, p.60)
finally, it is necessary to clarify the relation of aesthetic evaluation and empirical evaluation. according to mcallister’s classifying, there are two kinds of different views: autonomism and reductionism. autonomism regards scientists’ aesthetic and empirical evaluations as wholly distinct from and irreducible to one another. the mode of attention that is characteristic of aesthetic perception is disinterested, “disinterestedness” denotes an attitude of detachment or purposelessness toward an object of perception. the disinterested stance toward an object dwells not upon the object’s aptitude to further some aim but only upon its intrinsic structure and significance. aesthetic judgment pays no regard to utilitarian concerns. reductionism views scientists’ aesthetic and empirical evaluations as nothing but aspects of one another. these two views represent the extremes of a spectrum of possible views, each of which posits a certain degree of interreducibility between aesthetic and empirical judgments. and scientists’ aesthetic evaluation tends in the longer term to swing into line with their empirical appraisals. then, he puts forward the concept of aesthetic conduction. aesthetic conduction does not consist in attributing beauty to each scientific theory to the degree to which it shows fitness to its purpose. on the contrary, the aesthetic conduction will cause scientists to regard as beautiful a theory that shows little fitness to its purpose -- i.e., empirical success -- if this theory shares the aesthetic properties of theories that scored notable empirical success. on base of aesthetical conduction, he has analyzed carefully this relation:
aesthetic canons in science pay regard to two factors: the empirical success of theories embraced by the community and their aesthetic properties. the empirical success of a theory contributes to determine the weighting of that theory’s aesthetic properties within the community’s aesthetic canon; in turn, this canon is used to evaluate subsequent theories. an entrenched aesthetic canon will cause the community to produce and esteem aesthetically orthodox theories. sometimes a theory emerges which, perhaps in consequence of new assumptions or techniques, shows unprecedented aesthetic properties. such a theory is likely at first to be resisted in virtue of the established aesthetic canon. only when this theory, or others similar to it, has shown sufficient empirical success does the weighting of its aesthetic properties rise substantially. this allows the new theory to win acceptance on aesthetic as well as empirical criteria. the revision of the canon ensures that subsequent theories showing the new aesthetic properties are more likely to be accepted, enabling the community to pursue further the assumptions or techniques that constitute the new style of theorizing. (mcallister 1996, pp. 61, 62, 66, 160)
compared with experience judgment, aesthetical judgment has sometimes the function of lagging behind on time. j. bernstein wrote: “in science like in art, sound aesthetic judgment are usually arrived at only in retrospect. a really new art form or scientific idea is almost certain at first to appear ugly. the obviously beautiful, in both science and the arts, is more often than not an extension of the familiar. it is sometimes only with the passage of time that a really new idea begins to seem beautiful.” i think, the lagging the function of the aesthetic judgment of the scientific theory may only takes place on non-inventor himself. as to inventor, aesthetic feeling, including the appreciation of the new aesthetic factor, is often immediately. first-hand experiences of some great scientists, as poincaré and einstein etc, are the clear proof.
in the evaluation or justification of scientific theory, which standard is more important of empirical standard and aesthetics standard? it is a question that different people have different views. dirac thought aesthetic standard is the most important. j. wechsler adheres to the opposite view: in art, aesthetic is the finished painting, sonnet, or sonata which are normally the subject of our criticism or appreciation. science doesn’t exhibit products for aesthetic criticism in this way; there is hardly any recognized vocabulary of aesthetic criticism and response for science. the usual criterion “success” of a scientific product -- an equation, a physical model, or a written paper -- is whether it works, that is, predict, explain. aesthetical judgments operate in the cognitive processes of arriving at that product.(wechsler 1978, p.3) drac’s view seems extreme and some absolute, which lack the due flexibility, but wechsler's view has obvious mistakes. first, scientific aesthetical judgments not only work in the process of scientific invention, but also work in the evaluation and justification of the result that is invented. second, the scientific result is an aesthetically critical target. and there is an aesthetically critical vocabulary or lexicon. for example, according to this aesthetic principle of simplicity poincaré criticized the lorentz’s electronic theory, because it introduces too many ad hoc hypothesis (li 1983, pp.136-144). einstein's revealed it at the beginning of the special theory of relativity that maxwell's electrodynamics causes the asymmetry, which is not inherent of the phenomenon self, to explain relative motion of the conductor and magnet. moreover, he always pays attention to scrutinizing and criticizing the existing theory in terms of aesthetics all the time (see einstein 1977, p.124). we have already involved people's aesthetic appraisal on scientific result, theory of relativity and quantum mechanics many times in the front, which is undoubtedly another effective evidence of proving our view conclusively.
in the scientific practice, to judge the degree of empirical adequacy of theories, most scientists are content to use empirical criteria such as internal consistency and consistency with extant empirical data, which is rational and normal. but, as scientists are aware, where are cases in which empirical criteria for theory evaluation fail to reveal a theory’s true degree of empirical adequacy. these cases may be classified as false negative, in which empirical data appear to cast doubt on a theory that is true, and false positives, in which data appear to corroborate a theory that is false. for duhem-quine thesis’s existence (li 1996, pp.323-377), whether to accept or refuse a given high-level theory can be evaluated only from non-empirical view, especially by aesthetic standard. dirac said:
suppose a discrepancy had appeared, well confirmed and substantiated, between the theory and observations…. should one then consider the theory wrong? … i would say that the answer to the last questions emphatically no…. anyone who appreciates the fundamental harmony connecting the way nature runs and general mathematical principles must feel that a theory with the beauty and elegance of einstein’s theory has to be substantially correct. if a discrepancy should appear in some application of the theory, it must be caused by some secondary feature relating to this application, which has not been adequately taken into account, and not by a failure of the general principles of the theory.
similarly, a. m. taylor wrote: “the elegant beauty of the theoretical edifice [of general relativity] is thought sufficient reason for believing it to be true.” if aesthetical judgment were able reveal a theory true or close to the truth, it would solve the problem of detecting the false negatives obtained in the empirical evaluation of theories. about false positives, since there is a valid argument from false premises to some true conclusion, it is possible for any scientific theory that is false to make predictions that accord with empirical findings. therefore, it may be that some theories that have passed all empirical tests to which they have been subjected are nevertheless distant from the truth. if there are no more discriminating empirical tests to which they can be subjected, such theories may be identified only, if at all, by appeal to non-empirical criteria. which non-empirical criteria can reveal the falsity of an empirically successful theory? dirac suggests that aesthetic criteria has this power: theories that are aesthetically displeasing are likely to be distinct from the true even if they have track record of empirical success. (mcallister 1996, pp.93-94) wechsler provides the annotation explanatory note of different class: when the scientist reviews their job, development of concept and expounding theory in detail, they think intuition and aesthetics guide their feeling of "this is it must be ", i.e. their feeling to accuracy. in fact, if we believe science and reality have single and only relations and assume it and truth are synonymous, the aesthetic idea seems to be the idea on the changeable or edge idea in science judgment or cognition. people can still recognize that the scientific result is beautiful (truth equals to beauty). however, if people regard science as the attempt with tangible convergence, submit to the experiment, must not submit to verify, then we have freedom of taking action: people can imagine, the hypothesis suitable for choosing obeys the aesthetic factor.
therefore is easy to see, which is more important of experience standard and aesthetics standard do not have a unified model answer. we should treat specifically to the concrete case. here, there are not available rule and procedure that can be applied mechanically, which need is that poincaré’s so-called “intuition” and duhem’s so-called “good sense”. when duhem discussed the good sense is the judge of a theory or a hypothesis, which ought to be abandoned, he said: when certain consequences of a are struck by experiment contradiction, we learn that this theory should be modified but we are not told by the experiment what must be changed. it leaves the to the physicist the task of finding out the weak spot that impairs the whole system. no absolute principle directs this inquiry, which different physicists may conduct in very different ways without having the right to accuse one another of illogicality. for instance, one may be obliged to safeguard certain fundamental which he tries to reestablish harmony between the consequences of the theory and the facts by complicating the schematism in which these hypotheses are applied, by invoking various causes of error, and by multiplying corrections. the next physicist, disdainful of these complicated artificial procedures, may decide to change some one of the essential assumptions supporting the entire system. the first physicist does not have the right to condemn in advance boldness of the second one, nor does the latter have the right to treat the timidity of the first physicist as absurd. the methods they follow are justifiable only by experiment, and if they both succeed in satisfying the requirements of each is logically permitted to declare himself content with the work that he has accomplished. now,
it may be good sense that permits us to decide between two physicists. it may be that we do not approve of the haste with which the second one upsets the principle of a vast and harmoniously constructed theory whereas a modification of detail, a slight correction, would have sufficed to put these theories in accord with the facts. on the other hand, it may be that we may find it childish and unreasonable for the first physicist to maintain obstinately at any cost, at the price of continual repairs and many tangled-up stays, the worm-eaten columns of a building tottering in every part, when by razing these columns it would be possible to construct a simple, elegant, and solid system.(duhem 1954, pp.216-217)


reference
chandrasekhar, s. (1995). truth and beauty, aesthetics and motivations in science. chicago and london: the university of chicago press.
copernicus, n. (1992). on the revolutions. trans. by ye shihui. wuhan: wuhan press.
davis, p. (1992). the mind of god, science and the search for ultimate meaning. london: simon & schuster ltd.
duhem, p. (1954). the aim and structure of physical theory, translated by p.p. winner. princeton: princeton university press.
einstein, a. (1977). einstein's collected works vol.1. beijing: commercial press.
fischer, e.p. (1999). beauty and beast. the aesthetic moment in science. new york and london: plenum trade.
guxuejia, a.b. (1981). aesthetics of scientific discovery. science and philosophy 6-7, 85-96.
jardine, n. (1991). the science of inquiry, on the reality of questions in the science. oxford: clarendon press.
li, xingmin (1983). the excited age: physical revolution at the turn of the century. chengdu: sichuan people's press.
li, xingmin (1996). duhem. taibei: san min book co., ltd.
li, xingmin (1985). evaluating standards of scientific theory. philosophical research 6, 29-35.
li, xingmin (1992). value evaluation of scientific theory. studies in dialectics of nature 8,1-8.
luke, a.h. (1986). intuition and scientific creation. philosophical problems of natural science 1, 10-20.
majer, u. (1990). simplicity and distictness. in n. rescher (ed.), aesthetic factors in natural science, 57-71. lanham, new york, london: university press of american.
maxwell, n. (1984). from knowledge to wisdom, a revolution in the aims and methods of science. england and new york: basil blackwell.
mcallister, j.w. (1996). beauty & revolution in science. the mit press.
miller, a.i. (1988). imagery, aesthetics and scientific thought (chinese translation). journal of dialectics of nature 10, 1-6.
pearson, k. (1892). the grammar of science. london: walter scott.
poincaré, j.h. (1913). the foundations of science, authorized translation by g．b．halsted. new york and garrison: the science press.
root-bernstein, r.s. (1996). the science and arts share a common creative aesthetic. in a.i. tauber (ed.), the elusive synthesis: aesthetics and science, 49-82. netherland: kluwer academic publisher.
tauber, a.i. (1997). epilogue. in a.i. tauber (ed.), science and the quest for reality, 395-410. macmillan press ltd.
wechsler, j. (ed.) (1978). on aesthetics in science. the mit press.
xu, hengchun (1997). aesthetics of science and technology. xi'an: shanxi people's press.