Talk:Social Statics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
[edit] Dubious Summary
Upon reading the single paragraph presently written on this book, I must object that it perpetuates a stereotype generalization about its content that is largely misleading. Herbert Spencer was attacked quite heavily for being a "Social Darwinist", but Social Statics is hardly a major example of that thinking. Indeed, it was for sometime an important and dominant Liberal tract advancing cogent arguments for many ideas such as Freedom of Speech and Universal Suffrage. As written the article deserves a non-NPOV warning. -- 24.180.28.156 04:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Could you offer specific recommendations or critiques? I'm aware of those readings of Spencer to which you refer, but I don't see anything particularly misleading in this summary. The historical counterexamples you offer (freedom of speech, universal sufferage) seem to counter examples that aren't actually presented in the article (presumably laissez faire economic policies). Indeed, most of the article is a rather extended quote. Perhaps if you feel this quote is out of context you could supply another from the book which would remedy this? I've removed the NPOV until then, --129.174.109.217 16:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
