What a strange and flawed analogy! Judgments about the validity of science are predicated on the principle of empiricism (we test our theories to see if they are clearly supported by evidence). I'm at a loss for how to apply anything like this principle of empirical testing to the quality of art.
>
> there are, without question, objective factors in determining not only
> "what is art" but also "what is good art." the history of forms and
> techniques, various ways artists wrestle with materials ( aesthetic,
> social, spiritual) and how works grapple with and resolve (or fail to
> resolve) internal and external contradictions are among the most
> important objective and measurable features of art. as far as the
> reception of artworks goes, taste itself has an objective dimension and
> history as well.
The empirical problem with this claim is that people who study art do not come close to agreeing about what these "objective factors" are. --And if you specify some factor that other "art experts" challenge, it's not really an objective factor, is it? Again, this relies on the false analogy between the assessment of scientific theories and the assessment of the quality of art. These are just two incommensurable domains, with different types of reasoning and praxis.
Miles