I do appreciate where you are coming from, but there has to be more to getting images correct and so we can enjoy them.
Of course there is more but usually one aspect of getting the image "correct" is to avoid apparent noise. My measurements of apparent noise are objective and not confused by different scenes, lighting, different apertures, different sharpness, etc. This is why I favor them to compare cameras. I don't expect everyone to adopt my view; but I also don't expect it to be attacked as invalid without a good argument.
Science and mathematics have their part to play. After all the charts are the only visual result we have without having to understand the science behind them.
The science and mathematics are well known and documented, even at my site. If someone doesn't care to understand the material (which is fine) then I guess they have to take the findings at face value. Or, they can disbelieve the information but (IMO) are in no position to criticize it publicly from a position of ignorance.
It will be great when the cameras are actually out and there will be a wealth of hands-on experience. For now we "make do" with available information.