I did a little digging for the
Latin scholars out there.
Disputandem does not exist in any dictionary I can find. Anyways, unless it was very irregular it would be a third declension noun in the
accusative, and so would not agree with
gustibus.
Disputandum is the correct declination. It is nominative or vocative case, depending on interpretation. Also singular, future, passive participle.
I'm uncertain why a future particple would be used with the present tense est, it could simply be a little bit of poetic license on the original author's part. Ovid did this frequently.
While gustibus appears to be third declension (this is probably why there there is the dispute about dusputandum). It is fourth declension, masculine, and dative or ablative construction. I would guess that it is ablative absolute.
So....
While a more correct translation might be something awkward like there shall be/have been no accounting of taste I think the above translation stands.
/msg me if you disagree...and check out the Latin Language Metanode.
An addition: Gone Jackal says the phrase is from Francis Bacon and "de + prepositional object in the ablative + negative partical + gerundive + 3rd sing present of verb to be in passive paraphrastic expressing. disputandum is the gerundive of disputo, to calculate, estimate, judge. So, "concerning tastes it must not be judged" After taking a second look, I definitely agree.