Introduction: The final objective of social sciences is to seek objective truth, so scientists are seeking realism in science, and this is a term that one of its meanings implies the "objective" conception of reality. Thus, the most fundamental problem in methodology for scientists is that what is objectivity? How can one integrate objectivity in the process of knowing the facts, realities and coincidence of these matters together? How can one set aside a biased notion? The most important issue of any type of epistemology and science is to create a balance between objectivity and subjectivity in science. If an objective experiment does not lead to subjective and methodical rules and laws, then science and knowledge will not be formed, and if subjective rules and laws cut out from the objective reality, realism will be lost. In the other words, the central axis of the questions of epistemology is the "value of cognition", and this seeks to show that what is the criterion of identifying "facts" from false and contradictory ideas to reality? According to the above, objectivity and validity in various sciences, including geography, are of fundamental positions, and different geographic schools have taken different positions in this regard, which directly relate to the results of the research. In this paper, we are seeking to find out what are positions of methodology schools in geography in relation to objectivity and validity of geographic propositions? What are conclusions given to these positions? Which position can have a scientific position in geography? In this paper, we have tried to emphasize political geography in various propositions...