I didn't read the article (what is this, Slashdot? ) but there are certain contexts in which

what is pleasing to the human ear has not changed since man began writing music

is true.

Our 7/12 note system, equal temperament, is a well-designed approximation of what sounds good to the human ear, but it's not the only one available. It and the others that exist approximate the ratios of frequencies that sound good. Most of them exist to provide the most common good ratios and allow the ability to play in different keys without retuning the instrument. But few, if any, of the notes in equal temperament are 100% correct ratios from the root.

Then again, there are notes that sound awful played together without context, but can sound good in the right context. The most prominent of them is the flatted fifth, which almost always sounds awful, but can sound interesting in the right context. The flatted 2nd and sharp 7th tend to sound pretty bad all the time.

So I think that most musical theories, natural or invented, try toward the same goal -- those frequency ratios that sound good, and that those ratios are universal. There may be outlying stuff about the music you don't like, but there's a lot of stuff written in equal temperament that I don't like, so I wouldn't blame the scale. But, then, there are some things that sound good only under certain circumstances, and those may well be culture-specific. (Don't you like the way I include new information in my conclusion? An F from the composition teachers amongst you.)