4 ms·

No it's not. It's applying a philosophical razor. That is, claiming an age is decadent is an unfalsifiable claim. Therefore it is a meaningless claim. If you c

No it's not. It's applying a philosophical razor. That is, claiming an age is decadent is an unfalsifiable claim. Therefore it is a meaningless claim. If you cannot produce a test by which your claim fails, in this case criteria that would meaningfully distinguish an age as not decadent then your hypothesis isn't worth pontificating. Claims of "decadence" by historians have a funny way of aligning with a narrative a historian is trying to tell about a people or place. It is uncanny how often the claim is made by some older historian who doesn't like the new hair styles or new lingo or new political positions of a younger generation. Edit: the philosophical razor here is what Mike Alder refers to as Newton's Flaming Lazer Sword https://philosophynow.org/issues/46/Newtons_Flaming_Laser_Sword https://philosophynow.org/issues/46/Newtons_Flaming_Laser_Sw...

wolverine876 5y ago
>>> 1900 was an age of decadence, 1920 was an age of decadence, 1940 was an age of horrors so horrific Europe basically collapsed. 1960s were extremely decadent but it was a bit more broad-based. The 1980s were decadent (I recommend Wolfe's The Bonfire of the Vanities). 2000 was maybe unusually sedate? Probably it was decadent and I didn't notice. 2020 is decadent and I am not surprised. >>> The times don't change all that much. That doesn't sound philosophically or factually rigorous, nor particularly true in many ways, nor like something that reflects any razor-like precision.
- DubiousPusher 5y ago
  > , nor particularly true in many ways I think it's pretty obvious that if someone wanted to dig through popular historical stories they could easily cherry pick factoids from virtually any decade in order to paint it in a decadent light. In this case, the null hypothesis is that human behavior is pretty consistent over time. It's on the claimant of an idea that cuts against the null hypothesis to provide the evidence. I have never seen a statistically convincing analysis of decadence. It's just usually someone spouting off with a bunch of anecdotes. I can provide you some from an array of decades if you like.

wolverine876 5y ago

>>> 1900 was an age of decadence, 1920 was an age of decadence, 1940 was an age of horrors so horrific Europe basically collapsed. 1960s were extremely decadent but it was a bit more broad-based. The 1980s were decadent (I recommend Wolfe's The Bonfire of the Vanities). 2000 was maybe unusually sedate? Probably it was decadent and I didn't notice. 2020 is decadent and I am not surprised. >>> The times don't change all that much. That doesn't sound philosophically or factually rigorous, nor particularly true in many ways, nor like something that reflects any razor-like precision.

DubiousPusher 5y ago
> , nor particularly true in many ways I think it's pretty obvious that if someone wanted to dig through popular historical stories they could easily cherry pick factoids from virtually any decade in order to paint it in a decadent light. In this case, the null hypothesis is that human behavior is pretty consistent over time. It's on the claimant of an idea that cuts against the null hypothesis to provide the evidence. I have never seen a statistically convincing analysis of decadence. It's just usually someone spouting off with a bunch of anecdotes. I can provide you some from an array of decades if you like.