But in the "culture" of science, in the personalities and habits and ways of doing things common in the science community? Perhaps.
It's important to keep this in mind, and realize that the majority of popular resentment of science comes from the latter, not the former.
But in the "culture" of science, in
But most scientists work as part of a wider community of scientists. They may, in fact, interact primarily or exclusively with other members of that sub-community. Like any community, there are rules and norms and values and whatnot that govern the way in which people commonly behave in that community, what is acceptable and what is not, what is usually done and what is avoided, etc.
Some of these norms and values come from the nature of their collective endeavor, and some do not. An emphasis on accuracy, reporting one's findings, and discussion thereof are community norms, but norms that stem directly from the practice of science - if they weren't doing these things, it wouldn't be science as we understand it.
Other things, like the violently negative attitude towards such things as astrology, are not. There is no reason inherent to the practice of science that says obvious non-rational fallacies like astrology must be attacked with arrogant contempt - complete disinterest, or magnanimous bemusement seem equally possible, even though they are currently minority responses.
To put it another way, not every scientist has to come across like Dawkins, but the fact that a good number of them do (including many friends of mine in different fields) indicates that a particular group culture is at work.
The basis of which is that Quality - like all of the facets oof Reality, such as "Beauty", or "Value" - is indefinable, or definable only in relative terms.
Science as a Religion will do me fine. You only have to look at Dawkins to realise that he is as fanatical as any Jesuit in defending HIS Religion.
This doesn't mean anyone will immediately be able to take a beautiful photo - or even that I can, to order - but the rules are there, and to some extent they can be quantified.
There are also studies of facial beauty that will tell you the exact proportions that make each face beautiful - or not.
There are certainly more nebulous and vague perceptions which are more difficult to parse. Abstract art would be very much harder to quantify - but it's a challenge for many humans too.
So I don't think you can rely on a feelgood catch-all like quality to understand these things.
But that was one of the points I made - in the arts, it's more about unquantified opinion, and the origins and roots of those opinions aren't tested.
It's more about 'I feel this is...' This works just fine for some things, but is a very different perceptual mode to the one required for science.
