Not only do they have to have a ruler that matches mine, they have to know what the figures mean and how I generated them. You begin to see the problem. Both are seen as dealing in irreducible truth. However the scientific validity of arty process is based on how it's done - the methodology. Simply producing numbers isn't enough, we need to know what they mean, and that is the nub of the problem.
Measurement can be extremely useful to a product designer, working in a limited context.
Trying to use it as a generalised descriptive system is pretty pointless. Once they've been simplified to the point where a layman can understand them you've probably destroyed whatever information they contained. I'm quite happy to look at measurements and see if they can explain what we hear. They don't even get close most of the time, which means that we'll only be writing about it when we come across a situation where they do, and that then it'll be done by someone who knows a lot more about them than me. Finally, let's return to the point that the scientific validity of results is defined by the way that they are generated.