Talk:Herbert Spencer

message: This is an area where there is much confusion, and there are many reasons, often due to impartial POV of various biographers of Spencer.  Three things that should be considered: 1. His belief in natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc. 2. His early political radicalism. 3. Later political de-radicalism.  These ideas were not equivalent and Spencer's thoughts did change, so the desire to tie some supporters of Spencer with other ideas he had (or was accused of having) is one of the more notorious acts of some writers on the subject.
It is #2 where he was influential among Individualist Anarchists and radicals like H.L. Menken.  #1 where his ideas were perceived by others as promoting government control, such as by Justice Holmes.  Many of those that trumpeted these ideas (like Holmes and other eugenecists) were bitterly hostile to Spencer's political thought. And #3 is seen through his abandoning his radical thoughts like dropping his "The Right to Ignore the State" from later editions of Social Statics.
Note: None of this is "original work" and is commonly known among those who compare the literature on Spencer. Carltonh 00:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spencer's Influence

message: You have to pay for full access (unless your college subscribes) but Questia gives Free table of contents and free first page of every chapter, plus publishing details. That's a lot of free info available NOWHERE else and essential if you are going to try for inter-library loan.  It's like listing a publisher which mamy articles do--yet the publisher sells the book for $$$ and gives little or nothing away for free. Rjensen 16:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree with Rjensen. We allow listing of printed books, which are rarely free (you can get them from the library, and you can get free Questia access from some libraries as well). If we can replace some of those books with free ones (Spencer original works are in public domain, after all), that would be preferable, of course.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Put Questia back in: very valuable info

message: The last paragraph of this section strikes me as not only not holding together well, but also as misconstruing Spencer's ideas (something apparently very easy to do).
It's the last sentence that's the real trouble:
"Some may believe in Spencer's survival of the fittest within the confines of a natural rights philosophy, but others have rejected his ideas of linear progress and replaced them with the paradigm shift ideas of Thomas Kuhn."
There's allegedly a parallel between "believing in Spencer's survival of the fittest" and "linear progress," but I don't see it. Besides, the phrase "believing in Spencer's" anything strikes me as bad encyclopedia style. 
"Survival of the fittest" is the same principle as what Darwin called "natural selection." Almost EVERYONE "believes" in it to some degree, excepting (of course) modern-day creationists. The article, alas, does NOT explain that it is the identical concept as Darwin's, or that Spencer applied it to many levels of organization, from organism through functional practices to social structures. This sentence suggests that "Spencer's" principle is different from Darwin's, which it isn't. Spencer merely applied it to a different set of data. Further, it suggests that this principle (because of the parallelism with the second half of the sentence) amounts to a unilinear concept of evolution. Which it doesn't. Spencer used natural selection theory to explain evolutionary processes. They are not the same.
There's something worse here, though. Can Spencer's thought really be considered a theory of unilinear progress? Since his mental picture of evolution is one of growing complexity, with diversity and integration going on at once, how does this paint a "linear view"? It doesn't, so far as I can tell, except in some of his readers, who probably held less sophisticated notions. And from what I recall, Spencer explicitly denied that societies, for instance, must go through every stage of his evolutionary growth. He realized that many social groups, like most organisms, remain simple, "unevolved," and that societies can skip stages that he outlined at length in The Principles of Sociology. This means, to me, that Spencer explicitly foreswore the point here being applied "against" him.
Further, the idea of "paradigm shift" overview as an alternative to Spencer's -- what, his epistemology, view of science? -- doesn't tally well with the fact that many evolutionary epistemologists cite Spencer favorably. See Karl Popper's essay in "Objective Knowledge," for instance, or works by Radnitzky.
I move to strike the sentence in question, unless the original author can explain what it means, and revise to suit any criticism that I've made here that appear to others as meaningful.
NOTE: I will be putting up a whole batch of references in a week or so. There's a huge literature out there on Spencer, and this batch does not give fair representation to that extensive work. 
ANOTHER NOTE: There are a few phrases in this article that strike me as quotations from scholarly work, without citing which work (for instance, sociologist Jonathan Turner's line about Darwin being a "biological Spencerian").
:The linear progress tie to survival of the fittest is not a denial of growing diversity or even exponential growth.  Instead it is an explanation of Spencer's belief that nature tends towards continuous improvement.  Therefore a trend of change, if the above is true, is a change for the best.  Spencer originally applied this to politics and history, where the modern industrial world and growing "freedom" (as he viewed it) of classical liberal influence was supposedly developed through continuous improvement since barbaric times of the past.  The challenge arrived when classical liberalism declined and government power began to increase.  It did not fit his model.
:This is where Spencer's claimed supporters had to take opposite paths: Either defend the new social direction of increasing government power (Holmes) or to defend the old classical liberalism (Menken).  It is meaningful to state how he is interpreted by supporters and to show that these were two diametrically opposed groups.  There were Holmes eugenicists vs. the Menken classical liberals.  It is important to get rid of the deception of those who try to associate the classical liberal and anarchist sides with the eugenicists who were always pro-state and applied what they supported in Spencer in a way he radically opposed. It would be as erroneous as claiming Hegel was a Marxist.  Carltonh 15:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Paragraph of "Breadth of Political Influence" 

message: I moved anon comment from main text to talk.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there were any truth in this, it would only be necessary to quote Spencer saying such instead of reading some interpretation in a language other than Spencer's. Carltonh 15:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly.  In fact, from all I have read, scholars who have studied Spencer agree that he was an an ardent and consistent opponent of imperialism. As to the reference in this discussion to his alleged pro-imperialist comments in Social Statics, not "Social Statistics," I'd be curious to read the offending quotation...because I've never heard of it.130.160.214.237 17:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon comments on imperialism 

message: Is there any evidence that Spencer was a racist/believed certain races were inferior to others?  I've heard this claim many times but never seen it verified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RobinReborn (talk • contribs) 04:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Spencer's final project was a "Descriptive Sociology" divided into three divisions: "Division I - Uncivilised Societies. - Lowest Races, Negrito Races, and Malayo-Polynesian Races; African Races; Asiatic Races; American Races. Division II - Civilised Societies - Extinct or Decayed - Mexicans, Central Americans, Chibchas and Peruvians; Hebrews and Phoenicians; Greeks - Hellenic Era. Division III - Civilised Societies - Recent or Still Flourishing. - English; French". I don't know that he was more racist than many others of his era, but I don't think that organisation of his work leaves room for doubt.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faff296 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Spencer took the position that humans adapt to their environment fairly rapidly, through the inheritance of acquired characteristics, and from this perspective any differences in races would disappear if members of these races were adapting to the same environment. So the concept of fixed races would not make much sense in Spencer's scheme. Nevertheless, his work does reflect the notion that humans adapting to industrial environments are in some sense superior to others--but it's easier to interpret this as a belief in "progress" than as an expression of racism. In his work there is no discussion of fixed racial types found in the work of racial anthropologists like Georges Vacher de Lapouge--no mention of "dolicocephalic blondes" or "brachiocephalic brunettes", for example--so it would be distorting Spencer to charge him with racism. --Anthon.Eff 14:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why lie and make up complete nonsense? We have his own words:
"To your remaining question respecting the intermarriage of foreigners and Japanese, which you say is "now very much agitated among our scholars and politicians" and which you say is "one of the most difficult problems," my reply is that, as rationally answered, there is no difficulty at all. It should be positively forbidden. It is not at root a question of social philosophy. It is at root a question of biology. There is abundant proof, alike furnished by the intermarriages of human races and by the interbreeding of animals, that when the varieties mingled diverge beyond a certain slight degree the result is inevitably a bad one in the long run. I have myself been in the habit of looking at the evidence bearing on this matter for many years past, and my conviction is based on numerous facts derived from numerous sources. This conviction I have within the last half-hour verified, for I happen to be staying in the country with a gentleman who is well known and has had much experience respecting the interbreeding of cattle; and he has just, on inquiry, fully confirmed my belief that when, say of the different varieties of sheep, there is an interbreeding of those which are widely unlike, the result, especially in the second generation, is a bad one—there arise an incalculable mixture of traits, and what may be called a chaotic constitution. And the same thing happens among human beings—the Eurasians in India, the half-breeds in America, show this. The physiological basis of this experience appears to be that any one variety of creature in course of many generations acquires a certain constitutional adaptation to its particular form of life, and every other variety similarly acquires its own special adaptation. The consequence is that, if you mix the constitution of two widely divergent varieties which have severally become adapted to widely divergent modes of life, you get a constitution which is adapted to the mode of life of neither—a constitution which will not work properly, because it is not fitted for any set of conditions whatever. By all means, therefore, peremptorily interdict marriages of Japanese with foreigners. I have for the reasons indicated entirely approved of the regulations which have been established in America for restraining the Chinese immigration, and had I the power I would restrict them to the smallest possible amount, my reasons for this decision being that one of two things must happen. If the Chinese are allowed to settle extensively in America, they must either, if they remain unmixed, form a subject race standing in the position, if not of slaves, yet of a class approaching to slaves; or if they mix they must form a bad hybrid. In either case, supposing the immigration to be large, immense social mischief must arise, and eventually social disorganization. The same thing will happen if there should be any considerable mixture of European or American races with the Japanese."
From the Appendix of Hearn's "Japan, An Attempt at Interpretation"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.120.232.228 (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racist? 

message: Could the contributor of the information about Appleton's print runs please contact me. I am working on The Origin of Species as a book and interested in comparing print runs. Appleton also published Origin. I am so pleased to have found this information in the Spencer article in  Wikipedia. Well done. Please contact. 
--Cornflwr 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appleton and Spencer 

message: So even though Spencer was admittedly an agnostic and an opponent of theology he gets described as a deist without any reference to the text of one of his works (let alone a page number)?? 
And even though the contributor acknowledges he would not describe himself as a Comtean positivist he gets described as one, again without refs? Don't forget he wrote a paper on 'Reasons for dissenting from the philosophy of M. Comte'.
Much of this reads like contributor's opinion, not balanced judgement. What's needed (and it may be asking too much, especially with Spencer!) is more quotations and references to the (voluminous) literature. As an illustration of my theme, Spencer actually used 'struggle for existence' BEFORE the Origin in Social Statics 1851 (p322)!!
With strange people like Spencer and Wallace (and they are strange!) it pays to give a neutral account and let readers make their own minds up.  Macdonald-ross 13:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deist and Positivism?? 

message: The entry doesn't actually claim that Spencer was a deist.  What it does claim is that he was influenced by deism, which shaped his ideas in much the same way that natural theology can be said to have shaped Charles Darwin's.  Spencer was no more a deist than Darwin was a natural theologian, but these traditions of thought are important for understanding the ideas of these thinkers.  The references given at the end of the entry, especially the paper by Paul Elliot, support this interpretation of Spencer.
A similar point applies to the question of Spencer's positivism.  It is true that he denied that Comte had any influence on him, but many of those closest to him during his intellectually formative years - the 1850s - were Comte's most prominent British disciples.  This is especially true of George Eliot and G.H. Lewes.  Given Spencer's lack of formal education and tendency to acquire ideas from conversations with his friends and acquaintances it is inconceivable that Comte's philosophy did not exert some influence on his thought.  In this respect Spencer protested too much, as he jealously aimed to guard his own supposed originality.
Spencer's "Reasons for Dissenting from the Philosophy of M. Comte" was written because he had become alarmed that he was widely viewed as being merely yet another one of Comte's British disciples.  In the essay he concentrates on some relatively minor differences from Comte while neglecting to acknowledge that his conception of a philosophical system - a grand unifying theory that builds on the results of each of the special sciences - was the same as Comte's.  In short, Spencer was trying to do what Comte had done, but was trying to do it better, particularly by using more up-to-date biology.  The are also clear positivist influences in such matters as his discussion of the laws of nature (originally part of the First Princples but later published as a separate essay) and in his epistemology.  As with the influence of deism, the influence of positivism is supported by the secondary literature.
Spencer's philosophy has been widely misunderstood and his reputation as "the father of social Darwinism" is only slowly being disabused.  By drawing on the most up-to-date scholarship the entry aims to provide a more accurate assessment of Spencer's place in Victorian thought.
--MThought 03:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deism or positivism? - a reply 

message: This article needs attention. It is POV, the tone is wrong, and is heavily padded. In particular the reference to Lamarckian evolution makes it sound like Lamarck's theory is part of the current scientific consensus, but no mainstream scientist believes this. Any opinions on whether to add a "needs an expert" tag? Mistercupcake 13:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help Needed 

message: Quote:  "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that principle is contempt prior to investigation."  Did Herbert Spencer in fact say this?Bclater (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely buy the essay on which the assertion of misquotation is based.  "There is an attribute which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that principle is mis-attribution prior to publication."  --Aladdin Sane (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Herbert Spencer Say This? 

message: The article is pretty bad at sourcing the claims in it. I've added some cite tags in the life section, but the whole article should really be worked through, with sources added for the many undocumented claims in it. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct, we should rewrite it.  But somebody other than you or I, because we only have the energy to complain, not to actually do the work. RussNelson (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's customary to give the original authors a chance to provide sources etc. before starting re-writing. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of sources

message: I recently added a photograph of Spencer's gravesite, taken about 20 years ago.  It's not a particularly artistic picture, but I thought it might be better than nothing at all.  Perhaps someone can find a better photo than the one I contributed. - As I wrote in my edit summary, I'm not a regular contributor to this article, I'm just passing through. Astrochemist (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph added 

message: "Social Statics had been the work of a radical democrat "
WRONG of course. It was the work of a radical libertarian. Which is something the marxists who edit wikipedia would never acknowledge, right ? 190.191.46.31 (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: The Social Darwinism article lists Herbert Spencer as a founder of Social Darwinism, but this article claims that "...to regard Spencer as any kind of Darwinian, even of the 'Social' variety, is a gross distortion." Which is the correct view? Any ideas? --Jayson Virissimo (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no "real" social Darwinists, the term was made up in the 1940s as an insult, and even in its few appearances before then it seems to have been pejorative. Spencer was seen as a leading Darwinist, at a time when "Darwinism" included a range of evolutionary views including Spencer's Lamarckian ideas of "survival of the fittest". Even Darwin wasn't Darwinist in the sense of the neo-Darwinism of August Weismann. Anyway, essentially a good point, Bowler touches on some of these issues, must try to sort that out. If you can find anything in the book you cite about Spencer and "social Darwinism" and add a summary of it to the article, that will be useful. . . dave souza, talk 23:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I agree that the concept of Social Darwinists as a category is relatively recent I'd disagree about widespread application of the term "Darwinist", including to Herbert Spencer. Evolutionary theories at the time were very varied and open to debate. The term is also horribly muddled by the later orthodox neo-darwinist interpretation of the Darwin/Wallace 'descent with modification via. natural seleciton' which ignored Darwin's own lamarkist tendancies. So, basically I completely agree but would recommend not applying the term at all. We should really speak of theories of "organismal evolution" or "transmutation of species".--Hrimpurstala (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the sense of Social Darwinism (we've already established the anachronism of the term) is applied "to human populations (generally in a classist, racists[sic] and theoretically flawed ways" -- in this respect, Spencer is certainly a Social Darwinist. His own words treating various races as "widely divergent" subspecies and the intermarriage of Americans and Chinese specifically will produce a "bad hybrid". The full text is below and definitively damning on this point. From the Appendix of Hearn's "Japan, An Attempt at Interpretation"211.120.232.228 (talk) 11:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "To your remaining question respecting the intermarriage of foreigners and Japanese, which you say is "now very much agitated among our scholars and politicians" and which you say is "one of the most difficult problems," my reply is that, as rationally answered, there is no difficulty at all. It should be positively forbidden. It is not at root a question of social philosophy. It is at root a question of biology. There is abundant proof, alike furnished by the intermarriages of human races and by the interbreeding of animals, that when the varieties mingled diverge beyond a certain slight degree the result is inevitably a bad one in the long run. I have myself been in the habit of looking at the evidence bearing on this matter for many years past, and my conviction is based on numerous facts derived from numerous sources. This conviction I have within the last half-hour verified, for I happen to be staying in the country with a gentleman who is well known and has had much experience respecting the interbreeding of cattle; and he has just, on inquiry, fully confirmed my belief that when, say of the different varieties of sheep, there is an interbreeding of those which are widely unlike, the result, especially in the second generation, is a bad one—there arise an incalculable mixture of traits, and what may be called a chaotic constitution. And the same thing happens among human beings—the Eurasians in India, the half-breeds in America, show this. The physiological basis of this experience appears to be that any one variety of creature in course of many generations acquires a certain constitutional adaptation to its particular form of life, and every other variety similarly acquires its own special adaptation. The consequence is that, if you mix the constitution of two widely divergent varieties which have severally become adapted to widely divergent modes of life, you get a constitution which is adapted to the mode of life of neither—a constitution which will not work properly, because it is not fitted for any set of conditions whatever. By all means, therefore, peremptorily interdict marriages of Japanese with foreigners. I have for the reasons indicated entirely approved of the regulations which have been established in America for restraining the Chinese immigration, and had I the power I would restrict them to the smallest possible amount, my reasons for this decision being that one of two things must happen. If the Chinese are allowed to settle extensively in America, they must either, if they remain unmixed, form a subject race standing in the position, if not of slaves, yet of a class approaching to slaves; or if they mix they must form a bad hybrid. In either case, supposing the immigration to be large, immense social mischief must arise, and eventually social disorganization. The same thing will happen if there should be any considerable mixture of European or American races with the Japanese."211.120.232.228 (talk) 11:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: He used larmarckism instead of natural selection (last sentence of intro)? Isn't NS the process, and Lam a possible mechanism by which NS can occur? 141.14.245.244 (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the current phrasing addresses this issue. Survival of the fittest, at least as understood by Charles Darwin in the fifth edition of "[...]Origin[...]", was nearly interchangeable with natural selection. But what would he know? :) Jaydubya93 (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lamarkism vs NS 

message: "Although Spencer lost his Christian faith as a teenager and later rejected any 'anthropomorphic' conception of the Deity, he nonetheless held fast to this conception at an almost sub-conscious level."
How would the author know this??
"At the same time, however, he owed far more than he would ever acknowledge to Positivism, in particular in its conception of a philosophical system as the unification of the various branches of scientific knowledge."
Again, the author is making unsubstantiated claims, apparently reading Spenser's mind.
This needs to be re-evaluated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.253.114 (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is harsh. What the author of the article means is that although Spencer, like many in the nineteenth century (including Karl Marx), had given upbelieving in a personal (or even impersonal, Deist) God, retained an unquestioning assumption of the existence of beneficent Providence (which some consider a version of a belief in God). The inevitable benevolence of Providence was seen as manifested in the continuous Progress of history (this view is sometimes characterized as the "Whig" or liberal view of history). Until Einstein's theories won wide acceptance, belief in Progress (unconscious belief, if you will) was general. There is a very good description of typical Victorian agnosticism  in Olive Schreiners's The Story of an African Farm as recounted in Noel Annan's book on agnosticism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.152.153 (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: This article claims 1903 while the penguin sociology dictionary (2000) claims 1895. One is wrong. TheTyrant (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: nm, article is correct, dictionary is wrong. TheTyrant (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmation of date of death 

message: The article mentions that "Spencer adopted a utilitarian standard of ultimate value - the greatest happiness for the greatest number ...". This is perplexing for me, as Spencer clearly and repeatedly 
advocates the exact opposite:
"...it follows that a specific idea of "greatest happiness" is for the present unattainable. It is not then to be wondered at, if Paleys and Benthams make vain attempts at a definition."
Can anyone help clarifying this?
:I can clarify. The article is wrong. Do you have a citation for your second sentence? Lets fix it. Also, please sign and date your comments by using four tildes in a row (helps us know who we are talking to!). Thanks. Jaydubya93 (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spencer on ethics 

message: The opening paragraph has unusual and inappropriate commentary on the worth of Spencer's writing and importance. Half the material before the TOC is various people's opinions about how important he was. The reader is left with no clear idea of what he actually contributed, and then the article immediately devolves into several biographical paragraphs -- which also start by saying almost nothing about his beliefs/works. The Life section goes on for 350 words before explaining much of anything about his thinking.
The article needs to be much more focused on who he was and what he thought. And not rambling biographic material such as ... "Members included physicist-philosopher John Tyndall and Darwin's cousin, the banker and biologist Sir John Lubbock. There were also some quite significant satellites such as liberal clergyman Arthur Stanley, the Dean of Westminster; and guests such as Charles Darwin and Hermann von Helmholtz were entertained from time to time."
"quite significant satellites"?  Original research, essay language, uncited, unencyclopedic.
Leptus Froggi (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! Agreed. Do you have a suggestion to replace the line above? Jaydubya93 (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening remarks about Spencer's influence are not appropriate 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Herbert Spencer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070615181955/http://www.shpltd.co.uk/elwick-spencer.pdf to http://www.shpltd.co.uk/elwick-spencer.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020828181118/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?data=%2Ftexts%2Fenglish%2Fmodeng%2Fparsed&id=SpeFirs.xml&images=images%2Fmodeng&part=all&tag=public to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=SpeFirs.xml&images=images%2Fmodeng&data=%2Ftexts%2Fenglish%2Fmodeng%2Fparsed&tag=public&part=all
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Herbert Spencer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051123164134/http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/LFBooks/Spencer0236/PrinciplesEthics/HTMLs/0155-02_Pt05_Apps.html to http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/LFBooks/Spencer0236/PrinciplesEthics/HTMLs/0155-02_Pt05_Apps.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Herbert Spencer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081023230700/http://www.bolenderinitiatives.com/sociology/herbert-spencer-1820-1903 to http://www.bolenderinitiatives.com/sociology/herbert-spencer-1820-1903
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is the first sentence from the article: "Herbert Spencer (27 April 1820 – 8 December 1903) was an English philosopher, biologist, anthropologist, and sociologist famous for his hypothesis of social Darwinism whereby superior physical force shapes history."
And it includes a reference to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, however this statement contradicts what is said in the SEP article. Here are a few excerpts from the SEP article on Herbert Spencer:
"Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) is typically, though quite wrongly, considered a coarse social Darwinist."
"Spencer distanced himself decidedly from social Darwinism, showing why Moore’s infamous judgment was misplaced."
"Not only was Spencer less than a “social Darwinist” as we have come to understand social Darwinism, but he was also less unambiguously libertarian as some, such as Eric Mack and Tibor Machan, have made him out to be."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spencer/
185.252.183.159 (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article contradicts Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy it uses as a reference