to shape a coherent and unified criminal policy in the scope of society is inevitable because of the changes of time and space circumstance s with its requirements - whether economic, political, social and cultural developments in the Islamic society of Iran. In addition to this, with respect to Islamic society of Iran, criminal policy which complies with the beliefs and opinions of people and the ruling system and scientific method seems to be necessary. Therefore to explore the scientific and religious criminal policy and its features, the relation between the science and religion, conflict and agreement, declaring the superiority of one to the other and finally a criminal policy depends on certainty and sureness which has no conflict with the right beliefs of the Islamic society. In the other word, it can be implemented in the Islamic society and it follows the public agreement because religious- criminal policy is the other side of the coin of the scientific criminal policy.

The idea that science is objective, or able to achieve objectivity, is in large part responsible for the role that science plays within society. But what is objectivity? The idea of objectivity is ambiguous. This paper distinguishes between three basic forms of objectivity. The first form of objectivity is ontological objectivity: the world as it is in itself does not depend upon what we think about it; it is independent of human thought, language, conceptual activity or experience. The second form of objectivity is the objectivity of truth: truth does not depend upon what we believe or justifiably believe; truth depends upon the way reality itself is. The third form of objectivity is epistemic objectivity: this form of objectivity resides in the scientific method which ensures that subjective factors are excluded, and only epistemically relevant factors play a role in scientific inquiry. The paper considers two problems that arise for the notion of epistemic objectivity: the theory-dependence of observation and the variability of the methods of science. It is argued that the use of shared standard procedures ensures the objectivity of observation despite theory-dependence. It is argued that the variability of methods need not lead to an epistemic relativism about science. The paper concludes with the realist suggestion that the best explanation of the success of the sciences is that the methods employed in the sciences are highly reliable truth-conducive tools of inquiry. The objectivity of the methods of the sciences leads to the objective truth about the objective world.

The Abrahamic religions include the three monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. All of these religions consider Abraham as their ancestor, and they consider science to be the knowledge of the universe and humanity, which are divine revelations. The framework of science in the Abrahamic religions uses three basic concepts: 1) monotheism (as a fundamental principle, a single and all-encompassing Divine vision) 2) the universe (as a divine creation) 3) science (as an all-encompassing knowledge about the world as the sign of God). The purpose of writing this paper is to find the common principles governing science among Abrahamic religions, using a descriptive-analytical method based on library sources. The results of this research is an intellectual attempt to draw on the commonalities between various Abrahamic religions in the areas of constructive dialogue in the field of globalization, based on revelatory and spiritual teachings, to achieve the unification of the world, which is one of the divine promises and is rooted in the natural foundations of humanity.

Introduction: From a long time ago, benefiting from technology has been an inevitable thing for human interests, which is born and based on science. It can be claimed that there is harmony between ethics, science and technology, which promote each other. In this article, the researcher discusses this harmony and compatibility. Material and Methods: The current review study was descriptive and using the study of sources and research keywords among the books and articles published in the databases of Thomson Information Institute, science Direct and Pub Med. Conclusion: As science and technology continue to advance and become more integrated into our daily lives, ethical considerations become increasingly important. For example, the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has raised questions about the potential implications of creating machines that can make autonomous decisions and take actions. If science and technology were considered as a tool, it should have been able to subjugate humans and influence all aspects of behavior and values. While it has become a problem that eventually becomes aligned with morality by applying reason, and people now seek help from it as a tool.

The paper offers a distinctive reading of Popper’s work, suggesting that his Logic of Scientific Discovery (LScD) might be re-interpreted in the light of his Open Society. Indeed, Popper can be interpreted as criticising certain aspects of his first book, and as a result improving upon them, in his second. It suggests translating what Popper says about ‘conventions’ into his later vocabulary of ‘social institutions’. Looking back, I believe that Popper never intended the language of conventions and decisions to be read individualistically. I remain unsure whether Popper was himself quite as clear about this as he could have been.  My reading makes Popper a pioneer in the sociology of science. Scientific institutions are arenas of political power; but Popper did not discuss the structure and inter-relations of the social institutions of science, or offer a politics of science in the context of his methodology. What is missing from the skeletal sociology of LScD is the politics. We could put it in Popperian terms this way: scientific institutions are both open and closed. They are closed, firmly, to the inexpert, to the non-members; supposedly they are open to the qualified, provided the prerogatives of seniority and leadership are acknowledged. Despite these shortcomings, Popper’s critical and rational approach and his insistence on openness and intellectual honesty are still important today.

The present article deals with introducing and critically studying the book Descartes Embodied: Reading Cartesian Philosophy through Cartesian science by Daniel Garber. Garber, one of the most prominent researchers of modern philosophy and contemporary Descartes-scholar, wrote the book in 1980, and it was published by Cambridge University Press. This work has been released in French, yet there is no Persian translation available. It is a collection of articles written separately by author and published in credible philosophical journals. The unifying subject of the articles is the relationship between Descartes’ philosophical and scientific areas of interest. This article intends to introduce the author and covers the literary style of the book in English in brief. The article mainly addresses the introduction and critical analysis of the book itself, in two parts successively: form and content. This article intends to introduce the author and covers the literary style of the book in English in brief. The article mainly addresses the introduction and critical analysis of the book itself, in two parts successively: form and content.

Introduction The purpose of this study is to analyze the pathology of criminal policy based on the Hazards science to the pathology of the common areas of this science with criminal law. Hazards science of securing health against potentially dangerous events has become increasingly important in criminal sciences in general and criminal policy in particular. Lawmakers seek to address possible threats posed by some crimes as comprehensive laws for future generations and events. In this regard, the legislator seeks to delineate, with offenses and penalties, directions to reduce the potential costs of environmental offenses to individuals, and communities...

Background: Reason is one of the main elements of criminal proceedings. Historically, criminal justice systems are usually divided into two general types: in the first type, called the "legal evidence system", the reason is only what is stated in the law, and therefore the judge has the right to document his sentence other than It does not have. In the second category, which is called the "system of persuasion of the judge", in addition to the evidence permitted by law, the judge can study other evidence and even evaluate, injure and modify the evidence presented, but the issue that is important and is very important from a legal and moral point of view is the basis of the judge's knowledge and how to achieve it. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to analyze science and knowledge from a philosophical-ethical perspective from the perspective of evidence of criminal litigation to provide the conditions for explaining the knowledge of the judge and ways to achieve this knowledge as the most important evidence of litigation. Conclusion: The knowledge of the judge is one of the positive reasons in criminal cases that obtained as a result of examination, exploration, and investigation of the judge in the referral cases for him. science can be valid and cited when the reasons for achieving it are legal and in accordance with judicial ethics. Therefore, personal knowledge that does not have a rational and legal basis and origin cannot be a criterion and document for issuing a judge's verdict.