In advanced civilizations the period loosely called Alexandrian is usually associated with flexible morals, perfunctory religion, populist standards and cosmopolitan tastes, feminism, exotic cults, and the rapid turnover of high and low fads—in short, a falling away (which is all that decadence means) from the strictness of traditional rules, embodied in character and inforced from within. — Jacques Barzun
By the way, since I am taking Classical and Mod Phil concurrently, I understand that the Aristotelian approach to science is observation, and the Cartesian approach is experimentation. I find it interesting that the entire AGW science is based on observation, and that the theories from the observations must be proved empirically, that is, by having Mother Nature validate our tiny feelings.
I wonder if the Global Warmongers would appreciate being called “Aristotelian?” The Scholastics of our time?
Great point! Climate science is almost by definition Aristotelian in those terms.
That’s not to say we don’t understand the theoretical issues, and can’t identify underlying factors that would contribute to planetary warming or cooling. We can, in considerable detail. What we can’t do is assess relative levels of strength of the differing factors, especially since there are a lot of feedback mechanisms that tend to push things back to equilibrium.
With respect to identifying underlying factors, it seems that the Warm-mongers have perfected the art of “denying” the most obvious factors. There have been studies that correlate solar activity with mean temps but this is all but ignored. Solar activity is directly related to cloud creation: what could be more obvious than “shade cools?” But , that’s an inconvenient truth. BTW, the Dane who put forward this hypothesis actually designed EXPERIMENTS to test his idea, but has been frozen out (sorry) of funding because his very premise denies AGW.