I'm a little concerned with the Tolstoy view. If it's the "product of the social circumstances at the time" it would seem that there would be many "great leaders" occurring then. I also don't think the general public has even the slightest ability to recognize a great leader. Rather, they respond to an individual's charisma, much less to his/her leadership skills. OccamOne of the most extraordinary examples of someone who rose to leadership, in modern times, is Adolph Hitler. He was very charismatic (which supports your argument on this). However, I would counter that Hitler would not have risen to power, as he did, were it not for the social circumstances of the times in Germany. Also, he may not have even been personally, as motivated as he was, were it not for the social conditions in Germany. Furthermore, when he, so aggressively tried to expand his power to effect other societies, he eventually became an icon of the greatest failure of leadership in modern times. His charisma did not support his effective leadership, when the social conditions of the broader world were brought in to play. All leaders who seem to be bigger than anyone else and are seen as gods are nothing but the fraud behind tte green curtain. Lois
Hegel said (according to Wikipedia: “no man can surpass his own time, for the spirit of his time is also his own spirit.” If this is so, then, the great and powerful wizard, was seen as so great and powerful, due, in some fundamental sense, to the social factors in place in the Land of Oz.
Bringing this thought back to the original gist of this thread (as I see it), and incorporating the referenced Asimov article, “The Relativity of Wrong”, I would say that in regards to climate change debate, (even that part of the debate that is couched primarily with scientifically derived data), social factors play a large role in what becomes the prevailing belief. Asimov pointed out that what we know scientifically, in general, is incomplete rather than wrong. His examples were that based on scientific data, at one point in history, the world was considered to be flat. Scientific observations and calculations, subsequently, suggested that the world was spherical. Subsequent to that, scientific observations and calculations suggested a pear shape to our world. (Now we have first hand views from Earth orbit, and beyond, as to the shape of the Earth). This seems to me to be an important example of the matter of perspectives in the belief system of any individual’s or groups of individuals’ beliefs re: AGW or any other number of matters that are a part of public debates these days. While, it seems to me, that AGW(and Climate Change) deniers, exploit truncated perspectives to support the belief that AGW does not exist (while in some cases also finding and exploiting micro-instances of truncated data, by some who argue that AGW does exist), the broadest (and thus most complete) perspective indicates that AGW does exist and is causing and will, increasingly cause major devastation. I think that (though far too slowly), it is dawning on more individuals and groups of individuals that the most complete basis for belief (i.e., the broadest and most coherent perspective) re: AGW is that presented by more than 97% of climatologists, and that contrary beliefs are governed by other factors, including truncated perspectives.
Thus, in this respect, I think that the “spirit of our times”, is swayed towards the belief about AGW and its course towards devastation. Yet, OTOH, there is, still, much, so much, far too much, about the “spirit of our times” that sways belief towards denialism of AGW.