I honestly don't quite understand what the rest of this thread is trying to get at, but I'd much rather discuss this proposition than the article.
As I see it, not to allude to the Einstein book of same title, all good science knows itself to be a form of art; as Bill Bryson would have it, the art of the miraculous. Every "conclusion" is the most beautiful; the little or BIG miracles that make for locii of non-reflective Weltanshauung, perhaps.
CERN appears, on the one hand, to be propelling science into the mystery, the aporeatic, at a perhaps dangerous pace, but all the same, on the other, considering science as the art of the miraculous, one needs neither fear nor faith.
So, then, where does "art" seek to 'draw it's lines', and how, and why?
Perhaps none of this need be said, but then I wonder why my last comment was avoided...