Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aesthetics of science


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 00:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Aesthetics of science

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No evidence of any significant notability. Three of the four refs all track back to a single author and the fifth ref from "Nature" talks of "Beauty and wonder of science" and doesn't mention aesthetics. It is WP:OR to infer aesthetics from a source that doesn't mention is. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 21:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk  21:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk  21:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The papers cited in the article reference numerous other sources which discuss the same subject. I haven't checked them all out, but from the titles alone I'm prepared to assume that the following sources establish notability:
 * Breitenbach, A. (2013). "Aesthetics in Science: A Kantian Proposal". Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, CXIII, 83– 100.
 * Chandrasekher, S. (1987) Truth and Beauty: Aesthetics and Motivation in Science. The University of Chicago Press
 * Crease, R. (2002). "The most beautiful experiment", Physics World.
 * Currie, A. (2020). "Epistemic engagement, aesthetic value & Scientific Practice". The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
 * Engler, G. (1990) "Aesthetics in science and art", British Journal of Aesthetics, 30:24-33.
 * Fischer, E. P. (1991). Beauty and the Beast: The aesthetic moment in science. Springer US. (This one's on Open Library)
 * Holmes, F. (1996) "Beautiful Experiments in the Life Sciences". in A.I.Tauber (ed.) The Elusive Synthesis: Aesthetics and Science, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 83-101.
 * Hossenfelder, S. (2018). Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physicists Astray. Basic Books.
 * Kivy, P. (1991). "Science and aesthetic appreciation". Midwest Studies In Philosophy, 26, 180– 195.
 * Kosso, P. (2002). "The omnisienter: Beauty and scientific understanding". International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 16, 39– 48.
 * Montano, U. (2014). Explaining beauty in mathematics: An aesthetic theory of mathematics (Vol. 370). Synthese Library.
 * Parsons, G. (2012). "The aesthetics of chemical biology". Current Opinion in Chemical Biology, 16, 576– 580.
 * Reuger, A. (1997) "Experiments, Nature and Aesthetic Experience in the Eighteenth Century". British Journal of Aesthetics, 37: 305-322.
 * Todd, C. S. (2008). "Unmasking the truth beneath the beauty: Why the supposed aesthetic judgments made in science may not be aesthetic at all". International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 22, 61– 79.
 * Turner, D. (2019). Paleoaesthetics and the practice of paleontology. Cambridge University Press.
 * Zee, A. (1999) Fearful Symmetry: the Search for Beauty in Modern Physics. Princeton, Princeton University Press (Open Library)

—Dan from A.P. (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   05:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per 's explanation. @@@ X yX   talk  01:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep The sources tallied above are the merest sampling of the extensive writings that have been generated on the topic of aesthetic judgments in science, finding aesthetic merit in scientific discoveries, etc. The nomination's distinction between aesthetics and beauty is artificial; the former is the study of the latter. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure how this works, but just want to chime in that an article for mathematical beauty exists and is reasonably well written and has a lot of relevant content. I presume something like this can be done for science. Perhaps we can rename to "scientific beauty"? ("Beauty in Science" sounds like the science of why people find things beauty, which is not what we want, right?) QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Funny you should say that &mdash; I just added mathematical beauty to the "See also" list of this article. While "what about this other page" isn't always a good argument (sometimes the other page only exists because nobody has noticed it and put it up for deletion yet), in this case, I do think that the existence of one, and the fact that it's in OK shape, is evidence that we can make something of the other. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.