Francois Molnar's "Toward science in art" essay can be summed up like this: Art should be more scientific; it should find the roots of good pictorial composition.
He never once addresses subjectivity, what good pictorial composition is, what the goal of such art would be (to be pleasing?), or what he thinks science does. My guess is that he admires the respect that science got in the '50s (and now) and wanted some of that. Science > art has been around a while.