Moreover I agree with Putnam that aesthetic considerations play a role in the methodology of science. Physicists often look for symmetries, and there is aesthetic motivation here. Also, however, they can be influenced by the consideration that in the past the search for symmetries has been successful. Two or three hundred years ago this heuristics may have been influenced by theological considerations to the effect that God would have created a beautiful universe but now the experience of the success of the heuristics can be enough to encourage us. However the methodology is one thing, truth another.
Theories have to be tested by facts.
We rejoice when the heuristics of seeking symmetries succeeds. Nevertheless the symmetries themselves are matter of fact, not of value. At least the notion of explanation is a highly contextual one. What may serve as an explanation to Jones may not be seen as an explanation to Smith. To take a simple case, Smith may know the laws but not the boundary conditions, whereas Jones may know the boundary conditions but not the laws.