Weber said that,'Total Value freedom can never be achieved.' and it is practically unsound to quantify, measure and/or weigh beauty or joy. Perception of beauty changes with space-time, tastes are acquired and tossed out.

Why should art be symmetrical? Only because a bunch of scientists think that symmetry appeases the mind? Why should appeasing minds be on an artist's agenda? isn't the whole point of art to express something, period?

Define good?

Art is the most primitive and also the most developed form of communication. Art has it's uses and is appreciated for those uses. Anybody can express her/himself on various available platforms. But an artist has a purpose and his/her success in fulfilling that purpose can, should be and is measured/weighed/quantified/paid-for.

"The Enlightened application of scientific principles to other areas of intellectual activity equipped us with the tools to gain new understandings of our world, its complex systems of morality and its historical trajectory. The 'Scientific Method' is a prism through which we may study history and philosophy, and gives us new criteria for measuring and attributing value.

Empirical techniques have been used by such luminaries as David Hume to articulate theories of knowledge that rivalled previous epistemological contributions. Hegel drew heavily on rationalism to develop his teleological view of history, while Marx (a scientific historian - as opposed to an historian of science), is arguably the most famous historian ever.

I am not attempting to defend any of these positions, merely to draw attention to the historical and philosophical contributions that science and mathematics have made to the diversity of intellectual pursuit.

I would love to explore these concepts in more detail some other time".